PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.
	To be considered on Tuesday 29 April.

Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Scotland Act

Pete Wishart: When she intends to propose amendments to the Scotland Act 1998 in order to reduce the number of Scottish hon. Members.

Helen Liddell: Section 86 of the Scotland Act sets out the procedures. I have no intention of changing that.

Pete Wishart: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. I know that the issue presents a problem for her and for many Labour Back Benchers, but I am trying to be helpful. Has she considered using the league table of parliamentary contributions to determine which of her colleagues should stay, given that so many of them languish at the bottom of the table? Does she believe that those who will eventually face the chop will be in good company, because so many Labour MSPs will face the chop at the hands of the Scottish National party on 1 May?

Helen Liddell: I am delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) would receive the wooden spoon for his attendance record. The question is a bit rich, given that the leader of the SNP has said that Scotland will be independent by 2007. That would mean that prior to 2006 and the completion of the boundary commission's review, we would have to introduce legislation for an independent Scotland without any consideration of the costs and consequences of that. At the same time, the consequences of an SNP vote on 1 May would be cuts to public services, with all the disruption that that would entail.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will probably not be surprised to find out that the Scottish nationalists yet again did not up for a major debate—this time a Westminster Hall debate on health and safety. They never seem to turn up for Scotland these days. One of the consequences of the Scotland Act is the list system, and the deplorable way in which nationalist list Members do their work. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we do away with the nationalist-type list Member and that we have list Members who do their work properly?

Helen Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He and other Labour Members know that when we considered the Proceeds of Crime Bill—one of the most significant post-devolution measures in this House that was introduced to get rid of drug dealers in our communities—the SNP could not even be bothered to participate in Committee.
	My hon. Friend makes a point about the list system. I am sure that the electors of Scotland will vote Labour, Labour, Labour on 1 May to ensure that there will be precious few SNP list Members in the new Scottish Parliament.

Peter Duncan: I commend the Secretary of State for making sense of the question asked by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). As the hon. Gentleman may or may not know, no amendment is required to the Scotland Act to reduce the number of Scotland Members. It seems that the SNP's questions are just as confused as its policies.
	Ordinary Scots want fewer Members of Parliament, fewer Ministers and fewer MSPs, but still the Secretary of State refuses to move quickly. Is she worried about her own seat? Does she accept that an abstention rate higher than 50 per cent. on 1 May will be a damning indictment of those who seek ever more Scots politicians and big government? Scotland needs fewer MPs and smaller, much better government.

Helen Liddell: I was being kind to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) when I answered his question because, after all, he has been in the House for only about two years, and one must be understanding. It is rather rich for a Conservative Member to talk about fewer MPs and MSPs given that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) is the "Westminster one". He should look at his party in Scotland, because the number of defections from the Scottish Tories is increasing by the day. I believe that the Scottish Parliament elections will be well represented because the people of Scotland are now absolutely clear that devolution works, that partnership between the United Kingdom Government and a Labour-led Scottish Executive works, and that the stability of our economy and the prudence of its running is so significant that more people in Scotland are now in employment than in 1997.

Airport Infrastructure

David Marshall: What estimate she has made of the capacity of Scotland's airport infrastructure to keep up with projected growth in passenger numbers.

Helen Liddell: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are currently involved in a consultation exercise on the development of air transport in the United Kingdom. The closing date for representations is 30 June.

David Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I give a warm welcome to the Scottish Executive's plans to build rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports and to the BAA's announcement of a £200 million investment plan to double the capacity of Glasgow airport over the next 10 to 12 years. However, does she agree that, in the longer term—20 to 30 years from now—the interests of Scotland as a whole would be best served by one major hub airport that would provide more jobs and services than would otherwise be the case?

Helen Liddell: I commend my hon. Friend's question and recognise his considerable interest in transport matters, not least when he was a member of the Transport Committee. He is one of the experts on transport policy in the House.
	I recall that many years ago, when I was the economist for the Scottish TUC and my hon. Friend was a trade union official, there was a significant debate on a central Scotland airport. At the time, it was found to be unviable. The current consultation exercise offers the opportunity to explore that further, but it seems that the viability of a central Scotland airport has not yet been proved.
	I know that my hon. Friend is proud of the success of Glasgow airport and that he has contributed to that. It is going from strength to strength in terms of passenger numbers. The Scottish Executive are committing considerable resources to a rail link not just to Glasgow airport but to Edinburgh airport as well. I am delighted that there has been a 40 per cent. increase in passenger numbers over the past five years and that the number of direct flights from Scotland has grown from 18 to 25. A large part of that success can be put down to the campaigning undertaken by my hon. Friend.

Jacqui Lait: Is the right hon. Lady aware that when I was at the Scottish Office in the '70s we ruled out the central airport because of fog, and that nothing has changed since then? Does she agree that Scotland needs many budget airlines that operate from all airports, including Prestwick and Inverness? What action is she taking, in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive, to attract such services to Scotland?

Helen Liddell: A considerable number of budget airlines operate out of Scotland. We only have to look to the success of Prestwick airport in attracting Ryanair, greatly assisted by my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Sandra Osborne), for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), to know that. Indeed, there are more and more every week.
	I am delighted by the success of the easyJet flights from Inverness to Gatwick. I am also delighted by the improved services to charter destinations from Inverness. I met representatives of British Airways last autumn to get their commitment to continue services from Inverness to London. It is a success story, which the hon. Lady would know if she visited Scotland more often.

Sandra Osborne: I thank the Secretary of State for her unstinting support for Glasgow Prestwick international airport. Will she acknowledge, however, that in spite of its great success as Scotland's fastest growing passenger airport, it has a great deal of spare capacity? Does she agree that that should be utilised before we talk about expansion elsewhere?

Helen Liddell: There is scope to expand all Scotland's airports and we want more international airlinks as our economy continues to prosper. It is encouraging to note that there are proposals for even more direct airlinks from Glasgow international airport at Prestwick. Much of that is down to my hon. Friend's campaigning. I know that my constituents greatly appreciate the opportunity to take their holidays and to pursue their business interests from an airport that is so close to home.

Broadband

Andrew Rosindell: What percentage of Scottish residents have access to broadband services.

Anne McGuire: Almost all of Scotland's population can access broadband services, either through a terrestrial link or by means of satellite connection, if they choose to do so. The need to bring affordable services to businesses and individuals across Scotland is what underpins the Government and the Scottish Executive's work on broadband.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for her reply. How soon can rural communities and small towns expect to have the same access to broadband technology as the rest of Scotland? Does she agree that it is important to look after not just the central belt but the whole of Scotland?

Anne McGuire: I am delighted to advise the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) that that is exactly what is happening in Scotland. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Executive are rolling out a broadband expansion programme and are considering ways to solve some of the very difficult geographical challenges that we have in parts of Scotland. He will be delighted to know that that project will eventually roll out to the 250 communities across the highlands and islands, including some communities that are as small as 20 inhabitants.

Anne Picking: Does the Minister agree that the £4.4 million earmarked to introduce broadband in Scotland is not quite enough, and will she use her good offices to try to get more money for broadband? Access to broadband for people with businesses is crucial. For example, my constituent, Mr. Glenn Watson, who has four veterinary surgeries, must pay £24,000 per annum to link up his computer services, whereas other businesses that have access to broadband can do that at a much cheaper rate.

Anne McGuire: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise, however, that the £4.4 million allocation to Scotland comes out of a £30 million UK broadband fund managed by the Department of Trade and Industry. She will also be delighted to have heard the news from BT late last week that it is looking to slash its broadband rates to encourage the take-up of broadband in Scotland.

Alex Salmond: Would the Minister like to reconsider her first complacent reply suggesting that everyone can have access if they have access to satellite technology? Is not the reality that, of the 1,000 exchanges in Scotland, only 68 are asymmetric digital subscriber line-enabled? That is unsatisfactory: it is a lower level than in England, and lower than in just about any other European country. When will the Government snap out of their complacency and allow rural Scotland to have the same access to this technology as just about every other country in Europe?

Anne McGuire: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman took my factual comment as complacent. I said that access can be made available. Cost is an issue, which is why I would have thought that he would support the Scottish Executive, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise projects to roll out broadband, recognising that we have major geographical difficulties. I suspect, however, that the question that he and his colleagues must answer, given that they would slash our enterprise budgets, is how on earth broadband would be rolled out and the necessary investment be made.

George Foulkes: Would my hon. Friend mind if I were untypically nice to the Liberal Democrats, and particularly to their Scottish spokesman, for his excellent research published yesterday in The Press and Journal? It showed that, merely by accessing broadband in the House of Commons Library, SNP Members would have got all the answers to their questions, which cost the taxpayer £258,000.

Anne McGuire: As usual, my right hon. Friend crystallises the issue succinctly. I would encourage more Members of this House to use our excellent facilities, including access to broadband, to elicit information without having to table parliamentary questions, if that route is available.

Family Tax Credit

Rosemary McKenna: How many Scots will benefit from the family tax credit.

Helen Liddell: The estimated number of families in Scotland expected to benefit from the child tax credit in 2003–04 is 430,000. The number of families in Scotland expected to receive the working tax credit in 2003–04 is 90,000.

Rosemary McKenna: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff of the Inland Revenue accounts office in Cumbernauld on working so hard to implement that, and in welcoming the 200 additional jobs in my constituency in that regard? Is she aware that nine out of 10 families in Scotland are eligible for tax credits? What will she do to encourage all of them to claim their entitlement?

Helen Liddell: I share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the number of jobs created in her constituency and at her constituents' efficiency in processing applications for tax credits. Last weekend, like a number of Members—certainly Labour Members—I was out in my constituency encouraging people to take up the working tax credit and the child tax credit. People were astonished to discover that they would benefit even if they had an income of up to £50,000 a year, and that those with a child under one year old would be eligible for tax credits even if their income was £66,000. That is a significant move forward, not only in terms of taking people out of poverty but in terms of making sure that children throughout Scotland get the best possible start in life and families are given a huge boost to allow them to operate in a way that gives them pleasure as well as sustenance.

John Thurso: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, of a possible 5 million recipients of the new child tax credit, only 3 million have so far responded, so some 135,000 families in Scotland could lose out? I put it to her that a credit or benefit that has an application form 12 pages long with 47 pages of notes is bound to be a deterrent. I ask her to seek to have that simplified with her colleagues.

Helen Liddell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was very kind to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that we now have to play good cop, bad cop. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that his party opposed this system of tax credits, but I take the point about the complexity of claiming. None of us likes filling in tax forms—they are always difficult, which is very painful—but hon. Members have a role, and my parliamentary colleagues have been taking up that role in ensuring that people are aware of the tax credit system and that they receive assistance to ensure that they can claim the tax credits. I commend that activity to all hon. Members.

John MacDougall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the method of paying the child tax credit directly to the main carer, who is usually the mother, is indeed a more effective and efficient way to ensure that those resources are best spent in the right direction?

Helen Liddell: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I was in his constituency yesterday, where a number of people referred to the tax credit system, and I was very encouraged by the extent to which men, in particular, said that they feel that it is right that the money should move from the wallet to the purse because, by and large, the mother is the main carer. Indeed, that fact is replicated throughout the country, where more than two thirds of men acknowledge that the money should go directly to the main carer. That is a real way to move children out of poverty.

Jacqui Lait: Many Members have tried to elicit from the right hon. Lady what percentage of families in Scotland are eligible to claim tax credits. I understand that such figures are not published regionally. What work is she doing with the Treasury and the Office for National Statistics to persuade them to publish regional eligibility figures?

Helen Liddell: I am surprised at the hon. Lady's question—the figures are actually quite clear. More than 90 per cent. of families with children in Scotland are eligible to claim the tax credits. She is not in a position to be around and about in Scotland, but if she were, she would find that there is considerable take-up and interest, and my hon. Friends are trying to ensure that there is even greater take-up. Of course, that is very different from the position of the Conservative party; it wants to cut public expenditure by 20 per cent., which would lead to a cut in the money available to families as well.

David Hamilton: May I give a piece of advice to the Minister? One thing that does not happen—I do not understand why—is using the facilities available to us. Local authorities administer nurseries and primary and secondary schools. Surely a way can be found to use the education system to let people know about their entitlements?

Helen Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Many Members have accessed their own databases to ensure that schools, community groups, the Churches, and so on, are aware of the tax credits, but it would be very useful if all local authorities in Scotland were to take that on board to ensure that everyone knows—I make the point again—that families are entitled to the tax credits even if they have an income of up to £50,000 a year, or £66,000 if there is a child under one in the family.

Archy Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State investigate suggestions north of the border that people who are being passported from income support to the new working tax credit are losing out on free schools meals as a result of a deficiency in some secondary legislation that the Scottish Executive have not yet got round to implementing? Will she make it her business to ensure that that defect is remedied as soon as possible on the grounds that free school meals have a significant budgetary effect on weekly incomes, particularly for low-income families with many children?

Helen Liddell: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and I will certainly look into the issue as soon as possible and try to ensure that the necessary action is taken.

Poverty

Michael Weir: When she will next meet representatives of poverty support groups to discuss poverty in Scotland.

Anne McGuire: I met the Poverty Alliance in September 2002. I have no current plans to meet representatives of poverty support groups, but am happy to discuss at any time the Government's record in combating poverty.

Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she agree that guaranteeing child care for all children aged two and under, day-care provision for three and four-year-olds and setting up additional after-school and breakfast clubs throughout Scotland would be a huge step towards combating the scourge of poverty throughout our country? Does she accept that setting up such things in areas of greatest need should be a priority for the Government and the new Scottish Executive?

Anne McGuire: I might be prepared to accept some of that if the hon. Gentleman were prepared to accept that the cost of independence would undermine all of it. Significant measures have been taken on poverty in Scotland, covering children, pensioners and low-income families. Dare I remind the House that when the national minimum wage was being enacted, the one party that failed to send a representative on lifting people out of poverty was the very party that the hon. Gentleman supports?

Ernie Ross: When my hon. Friend meets members of the Poverty Alliance in Scotland, will she ask them what effect they think that the increase in the national minimum wage to £4.50 this year and the further increase to £4.85 will have on poverty in Scotland?

Anne McGuire: I will indeed. Members on both sides of the House know that the national minimum wage is one of the most significant measures introduced by the Government to lift people out of poverty wages. Every Member should realise, from the experience of their constituents, that the national minimum wage was a centrepiece of the last Parliament. In this Parliament, it will continue to be a centrepiece of our policies to tackle poverty.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Devolution

Alan Reid: What devolution issues she has dealt with since 11 March.

Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998.

Lynda Clark: Since 11 March, 31 devolution issue minutes were intimated to me. They concerned a variety of matters, including delay in court proceedings; challenges to confiscation orders; the requirement on the defence to lodge notice of intention to lead sexual history evidence in trials; and the fixing of punishment-part life licence hearings. In the civil sphere there was only one case, which concerned a challenge to the decision of a planning reporter.

Alan Reid: If the Office of Fair Trading report into pharmacies were to be implemented, we should see the closure of many high street chemists and their replacement by pharmacies in supermarkets. I was therefore delighted when the Scottish Executive rejected the report. However, there is widespread concern that supermarkets may be able to use UK competition law to overrule the Scottish Executive's decision. I hope that will definitely not be the case and I should be grateful if the Advocate-General advised the House on the legal position.

Lynda Clark: As I have said time and again, I cannot advise on such matters in the abstract. If proposals are made by the Scottish Executive, and intimated to me in due course if they are to take the form of legislation, I shall do my usual job and look into them. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that such matters are difficult; they must be seen in the context of the complicated structure of the Scotland Act. He cannot make wide, sweeping assertions about any of them. In general terms, competition policy is, of course, reserved, while health matters are devolved, but the situation can be extremely complex when those matters meet and intersect. That is why the Executive have a Law Officer to deal with them.

Annabelle Ewing: Perhaps we could try again!
	Was the Advocate-General consulted by the Scottish Executive before their announcement in March of their rejection of the OFT report on pharmacies? Does she agree that the Scottish Parliament has the power to take such a decision, irrespective of what the Department of Trade and Industry may do south of the border, or was that just another meaningless statement from new Labour during the election to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the Scottish electorate?

Lynda Clark: I am surprised that the hon. Lady still does not understand the devolution structures. The Scottish Executive do not consult me as a Law Officer. I am not the Law Officer to the Scottish Executive; I am the Law Officer to the UK Government. The Scottish Executive can, if they wish, consult their own Law Officers—the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. Those are the devolution processes. I shall deal with any proceedings that are proposed in due course.

Tam Dalyell: What thought is being given to the all too real but complex problem of delay in court proceedings to which the Advocate-General referred?

Lynda Clark: My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue. As I have told the House, some hundreds of cases of delay have been intimated to me as devolution issues. Some quite complex legal problems have surrounded some of these issues, and we have taken a number of test cases. The most important of these was the case of R, which was dealt with in the Privy Council, and in which I appeared personally. That helped to clarify the law in respect of delay. The main point was that where there is a breach of the convention on human rights in relation to delay in proceedings under article 6, the Lord Advocate is not entitled, because of the operation of the Scotland Act, to proceed with such a prosecution.

Devolution

Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues have been raised since 11 March.

Lynda Clark: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid).

Anne McIntosh: May I refer the hon. and learned Lady to my question and her answer on 11 March at column 151 of Hansard, in which she said that she would have four weeks in which to give her opinion on the Agriculture Holdings (Scotland) Bill? Will she share with the House whether she has reached an opinion within that time, and the content of her opinion?

Lynda Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this interesting issue, which came up in debate on an amendment. As I explained, it came before me as part of the Bill, which has now been passed. The four-week period expires tomorrow. It is not my practice to advise on this, but I will write to the hon. Lady tomorrow, once the four-week period expires, to explain to her whether I have decided to make any referral.

LORD CHANCELLOR

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Magistrates Courts

Paul Burstow: If she will make a statement on the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority consultation on court closures.

Yvette Cooper: The GLMCA is the magistrates court committee responsible for the running of magistrates courts in London and for the opening and closing of court buildings in the capital. Ministers are involved only where there are appeals from local authorities. I can today announce that I have accepted the appeal against the closure of Kingston magistrates court.

Paul Burstow: I thank the Minister on behalf of others for her decision. I look forward to the possibility of further appeals in the process of court closure reviews by the GLMCA. I ask her to consider the accountability arrangements for the GLMCA, not least the fact that it is not clear how it is held to account for decisions that it takes in private, it refuses to release information to Members about the basis for its decisions, and it thus makes the consultation process a mockery. Will she explain how I, as a Member, can gain access to this organisation, can hold it to account and can ensure that the public can be confident that its decisions are based on sound grounds?

Yvette Cooper: I am happy to look into the hon. Gentleman's specific concerns if he wants to write to me. It is right that the GLMCA should take a strategic view in respect of court buildings throughout London. He will know that because appeals come to Ministers it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases before the appeals are heard. I agree that we need to improve the accountability of local decision making. That is one of the reasons why we want, as part of the unified administration, the courts' administration councils not simply to have local magistrates on them but a wider range of members from the local community.

Edward Davey: I thank the Minister most warmly for her statement, especially the excellent news that Kingston magistrates court is not to close. The hon. Lady knows the strength of feeling on this matter in my constituency, not least because of our correspondence and our meetings. I am delighted that she listened to the strong arguments that were so skilfully marshalled by the chairman of the bench, Ian Rathjen. Will she accept our thanks for this welcome decision and accept my open invitation to her to visit the local courthouse whenever she has the opportunity to do so? Will she say a little more about the future options for building on Kingston's growing reputation as a regional centre of excellence for the bench?

Yvette Cooper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. He has made representations to me, as have some of my hon. Friends. We had serious concerns that Wimbledon court would not have the capacity to take all the additional cases if Kingston court closed. We also took into account the convenient location of Kingston court, which is so close to the Crown court and the police station, as well as the convenience for local people. Of course, every individual decision must be taken on its merits. I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit Kingston.

Sheriffs Courts

Angela Watkinson: If she will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's review of under-high sheriffs', under-sheriffs' and sheriffs' High Court enforcement functions.

Rosie Winterton: The Courts Bill, which is currently progressing through the other place, includes proposals to relieve sheriffs of their legal obligations in connection with High Court writs for the enforcement of judgment debts by the seizure and sale of debtors' goods and High Court writs for the possession of land. The Bill also introduces a new regime under which individuals will be authorised by the Lord Chancellor to act as enforcement officers for the purpose of executing those writs.

Angela Watkinson: The Lord Chancellor's review of under-high sheriffs, under-sheriffs and sheriffs proposes that a writ may be addressed only to a member of the Sheriffs Officers Association. If, for any reason, an under-sheriff is unwilling or unable to become a member of that body and is therefore disqualified from receiving a writ, will there be compensation for that individual?

Rosie Winterton: In the system that we are adopting, under-sheriffs and sheriff officers will be authorised by the Lord Chancellor or the person to whom he delegates responsibility for that authorisation, to carry out creditors' wishes to have a debt enforced. I therefore think that the problem that the hon. Lady has highlighted will not arise, because there will be an authorisation process, so sheriffs officers or enforcement officers, as they will now be called, will be able to carry out the process.

William Cash: The removal of high sheriffs from any rolling High Court enforcement will, as the Minister said, break the link between the high sheriff and the under-sheriff. In the past, the under-sheriff has offered the incoming high sheriff an indemnity against any litigation that might be brought by aggrieved debtors. Will the Lord Chancellor's Department indemnify high sheriffs in any outstanding period between Royal Assent and the point when the statutory limitation becomes legally effective?

Rosie Winterton: The issue that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted is one of the reasons for the change, because it was felt that it was unfair for a volunteer to be under certain legal obligations and carry such a responsibility. As for the time between Royal Assent and the continuation of the indemnity, that is certainly something that we shall look at and consult on.

Magistrates Courts

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations she has received on the distances witnesses have to travel to reach magistrates courts in north Yorkshire.

Yvette Cooper: None recently, but I know that North Yorkshire county council has lodged an appeal against recent decisions by the North Yorkshire magistrates courts committee. I have not yet received all the representations and have not yet considered the appeal.

Anne McIntosh: Is the hon. Lady aware that since her Government have been in power more than 200 magistrates courts have closed, which has led, particularly in north Yorkshire, to witnesses having to travel long distances in a sparsely populated area with limited public transport between villages and the places where magistrates courts meet? Could members of her Department turn their attention to facilitating travel arrangements for witnesses, enabling them to get to court, and to do so on time?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady's figures are incorrect. It is certainly the case that there were magistrates courts closures under the previous Administration as well as this one. Those closures vary from year to year—last year, there were seven magistrates courts closures, but in 1996, the last year of the Conservative Government, there were 21 court closures, including rural court closures in Hornsea, Howden, Market Weighton, Cheadle, Biddulph, Kidsgrove, Bedale, Easingwold, Leyburn, Ingleton, Thursk, Colwyn Bay, Llangollen, another Welsh place that I cannot pronounce, East Dereham and elsewhere. I could go on—[Hon. Members: "Go on!"]
	The hon. Lady ought to check her facts before making such points. However, she is right that there is a serious issue about ensuring that victims and witnesses can travel to court. Magistrates courts committees need to take account both of other facilities for victims and witnesses, including facilities available in the courthouse, and resources. This year, north Yorkshire will get 23 per cent. more in cash terms for magistrates courts committees compared with last year. Under Conservative plans, they would receive a 20 per cent. cut.

John Grogan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the private finance initiative bid by the North Yorkshire magistrates courts committee to build six new courts to serve the people of the York and Selby area? In view of the large travelling distances between parts of Selby and York, will she take due account of the strong local feeling that, if the bid is approved, at least one of the courts should be based in Selby?

Yvette Cooper: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on that issue, which he has raised with me before. He will be aware that it is the responsibility of the North Yorkshire magistrates courts committee to determine the location of the proposed new court houses. Clearly, if any appeal is made to Ministers, I will certainly meet my hon. Friend and consider all the issues that he wants to raise.

Fathers' Rights

Alistair Burt: What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received concerning the rights of fathers in family law cases.

Rosie Winterton: My officials and I have regular meetings with groups representing the interests of fathers. As part of the Department's work to ensure safe contact for children and their families after relationship breakdowns, members of fathers and mothers organisations contribute to policy development.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but would she consider reviewing the law in this area? An increasing number of articles and reports demonstrate that fathers are concerned about what they view as an inequality in the decisions made. They are also concerned about anomalies in the law, such as the differing treatment of older children in further and higher education, in respect of maintenance and the common law. In view of the sensitivity surrounding such cases, might it not be worth reviewing the law on the respective rights of fathers and mothers, to establish whether the complaints are fair and accurate and to settle the concerns that have been expressed so publicly?

Rosie Winterton: We are well aware that emotions run deep in such cases. It is almost impossible to please every party. Inevitably, the cases that come before the courts are high conflict cases. I believe that we should examine other methods of reducing the conflict. We must remember that the courts will always take a decision that it is in the best interests of the child: that is at the heart of the process of decision-making. However, we could develop parenting plans, in-court conciliation and mediation. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but many children are in a difficult position and it is important to take the best decisions for them rather than focus on the point of view of one parent.

Keith Vaz: Will the Minister reflect carefully on the evidence provided this morning by the president of the family division of the High Court to the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? Concern is widespread that fathers are not being treated fairly in family law cases, particularly in respect of the operation of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, because social worker reports do not put forward a balanced view between fathers and mothers. Does my hon. Friend know about those concerns, and will she seek to deal with them when she looks at the problem carefully?

Rosie Winterton: I will not only look at, but listen to, the evidence. When the problem was raised this morning, the judges before the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department acknowledged the perception, but felt that it did not conform to reality. As to the role of CAFCASS, it can provide alternative means of help. The judges also said this morning that the CAFCASS reports were of high quality and that they did provide fair assessments of the position. The other ways in which it could help include in-court conciliation, and a greater role in mediation and support for contact centres, which can help to ease the difficult problems that families face.

Court Administration

Gary Streeter: If she will make a statement on the role of the Department in court administration.

Yvette Cooper: The Court Service, an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department, runs county courts, Crown courts and higher courts other than the House of Lords. Magistrates courts are run by 42 independent magistrates courts committees.

Gary Streeter: I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that despite recent reforms, access to the civil courts in this country can still be very slow and prohibitively expensive for many of our citizens? Does she agree that that process could be immensely speeded up if it were overseen not by the arcane Lord Chancellor's Department, but by a modern Ministry of Justice that is fully accountable to the House of Commons?

Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Ministers from the Lord Chancellor's Department are here in the House of Commons answering questions on the business of the Court Service and the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
	There have been significant improvements in waiting times for civil trials. Fast-track trials have seen waiting times fall by 20 per cent. in two years and by 12 per cent. in respect of small claims. There have been improvements in civil cases, but it is clearly important to tackle delays throughout the justice system in respect of both civil and criminal cases.

Simon Hughes: Under the plans of the Lord Chancellor's Department, will the Government be able to guarantee that the courts of this country will be separate from the police service, so that people can clearly see and know the difference? Will the Minister and her colleagues be answerable in future, under the new plans, for court openings and closures—answerable to Members of Parliament, local councillors and members of the public?

Yvette Cooper: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the proposals for the unified administration, which would keep the courts very much separate from the police, because the latter are accountable through the Home Office, while the courts would remain accountable through the Lord Chancellor's Department. The unified administration will set up local courts administration councils and will be an executive agency that is accountable to Parliament. We envisage that the courts administration councils will take decisions or views on local court estate use, while the appeals process would be very similar to the current arrangements in respect of magistrates courts closures. Certainly, Ministers will ultimately be accountable to Parliament for decisions.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Laptops

Michael Jack: If he will ask the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to consider the use of laptop computers by hon. Members in the House.

Ben Bradshaw: I hope that the Modernisation Committee will look at the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion as part of its work on how Parliament can be made more accessible and the work of MPs more effective.

Michael Jack: I am most grateful to the Minister once again for his very positive response. He will recall that, towards the end of last year, we exchanged correspondence on this subject, and I am anxious now, some four months later, to find out what has happened. He will also be aware that technology has moved on and that some forms of computer, even without keyboards, have already been successfully pioneered to assist in the work of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope that he can assure me that it will not be too long before the Modernisation Committee can consider all those matters further to aid the work of the House.

Desmond Swayne: Shocking!

Ben Bradshaw: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, by contrast with some of his hon. Friends, who have just shouted from a sedentary position the word "shocking", on the leading role that he has taken in his Select Committee in encouraging the use of laptop computers in open session for the first time. We look forward very much to the report of his right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Chairman of that Committee, which I believe we are expecting by Easter and which will deal with how that experiment has gone. I am sure that the Modernisation Committee will take notice of that report.

Kevin Brennan: Given that hon. Members are already positively festooned with electronic devices in this place and that I have seen the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) twitch in the same way as other hon. Members when their pagers go off—

John Bercow: I never twitch!

Kevin Brennan: Perhaps it is a natural twitch.
	Does it not make sense that in Committee in this day and age, hon. Members should, as in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, have the opportunity to access information through a laptop computer?

Ben Bradshaw: It never ceases to amaze me that many hon. Members who purport to have Neanderthal attitudes to modern and electronic devices are the first to resort to them for their political use.

Programming of Bills

Gary Streeter: What proposals he will bring forward to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on programming Bills.

Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend has no plans to bring forward proposals on programming Bills. He notes that the Modernisation Committee has said that it will keep the operation of programming under continuing consideration.

Gary Streeter: As someone who does not oppose timetabling Bills in principle, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the new Leader of the House, whom I know to be a reasonable man—[Laughter.] I may have got that wrong. I ask them to examine the process of tabling amendments in another place which revert to the House of Commons on Report. There is often insufficient time to scrutinise them in the elected Chamber. That cannot be right. What will the Parliamentary Secretary and the new Leader of House do to deal with that serious difficulty?

Ben Bradshaw: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome in principle for programming. I am glad that he agrees that it is a good step forward from the position under the previous Government. I am happy to consider any specific case that he wants to raise to ascertain whether programming can be improved in future.

Peter Pike: I am a member of the Modernisation Committee and I also serve on the Chairmen's Panel. There are sometimes difficulties when a knife falls and guillotines are also operating on the Floor of the House. Will my hon. Friend undertake to examine that and perhaps invite all the members of the Chairmen's Panel to submit their views on flaws in the timetabling system, which I currently strongly support?

Ben Bradshaw: I am well aware of the specific difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. We would be happy to consider them. As a supporter of programming in principle, he knows that it has worked extremely well when there has been good co-operation between the parties.

George Young: Will the deputy Leader encourage the new Leader of the House to apply his no-nonsense approach to the Government's legislative programme? It is seriously over-congested and the guillotining regime is far too aggressive. Cannot we use the opportunity to have a less frenetic approach to legislation?

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman is right that we have a heavy legislative programme. The Government want to introduce many important laws for the benefit of our country. He is wrong to use the term "guillotining". That system was used under the Conservative Government, often a long way into consideration of a Bill. It allowed no debate on some of the important aspects of a measure. The difference between that and programming is that if the Opposition co-operate properly, the latter should be a method of sensibly scrutinising Government Bills, especially their most controversial aspects.

Paul Tyler: Will the Parliamentary Secretary convey our congratulations to his right hon. Friend the new Leader of the House on his promotion? In his discussions with his right hon. Friend, will he emphasise the importance of achieving all-party agreement? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friend whether he believes it appropriate for someone who may not be committed to the modernisation of Parliament to chair the Modernisation Committee?

Ben Bradshaw: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to rush to judge the way in which my right hon. Friend will act if he becomes Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. In last April's report from the Chairman of Ways and Means, he stated that he acknowledged that
	"the Opposition has to share a degree of responsibility for this disappointing outcome. The stated refusal of many Opposition Members to support almost any aspect of the modernisation agenda or even to engage in constructive discussion about them was a discouraging background to the Committee's inquiry in 2000."

New Sitting Hours

Bob Spink: If he will make a statement on the operation of the new sitting hours of the House.

Ben Chapman: Whether he plans to review the sitting hours of the House at the end of the Session.

John Reid: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

John Reid: This could be almost as enjoyable as being chair of the Labour party.
	The House voted last October for new sitting hours until the end of the Parliament. As you might expect, Mr. Speaker, I have come to this job with a reasonable, no-nonsense approach and an open mind. I have no plans for a sudden reversal of the decision to change the sitting hours. However, it will take time for the effects to be realised and to decide whether some modifications may be necessary. The House will have ample opportunity to discuss all those matters in the coming months, and to decide whether to recommend a review before this Parliament ends.

Bob Spink: May I welcome the President of the Council and congratulate him on his new post? We all look forward to his contributions. Does he realise that the mood of the House has changed significantly since the vote on this matter was taken? Will he now accept that we should not wait until the end of this Parliament, and that we should bring forward the review to the end of this Session, particularly so that we can review the operation of Tuesdays?

John Reid: Sorry about the delay—I was in reflective mode there, Mr. Speaker. First, it would be only fitting, as this is my first time at the Dispatch Box since my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) left his post, to put on record my appreciation of the work that he put into the modernisation and many other aspects of the House. I am well aware of how highly he was regarded in all quarters and on both sides of the House.
	Furthermore, so far as I can see from reading Hansard, I have to say that my deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, also put on a superb performance following that of my right hon. Friend. I could only hope to emulate them, certainly not in all spheres, but perhaps in one. You will be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that on Saturday, I had £10 each way on Monty's Pass, so perhaps there are ways in which I can emulate the former Leader of the House.
	With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), it is true that a fairly large number of right hon. and hon. Members have registered their objections in the form of an early-day motion. I think that that motion was tabled within 14 days of the original vote being taken, however, so it is perhaps not to be taken as a judgment made after reflection. Nevertheless, as I said, while I do not commend any agenda to reverse in any sudden way the modernisation of the hours of the House, this is up to the House itself. We all note that the intention of the House was to wait until the end of this Parliament, but the House being sovereign, it can decide, if it so wishes, to take a decision earlier.

Ben Chapman: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his present position. For me, after due reflection, the difficulties of the new hours include the potential for the increased departmentalisation of Ministers, the collapse of the informal workings of the House in the evenings owing to our shutting up shop at that time, the operating difficulties for Committees, the inability of my constituents to follow Line of Route visits except on Mondays, and the limited ability to hold meetings with outside organisations during the daytime. I could go on—[Hon. Members: " Go on!"]—but I will not. Suffice it to say that I encourage my right hon. Friend in his flexibility, and I repeat the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) that our review should take place sooner rather than later.

John Reid: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, the first item that he mentioned—the social and political intercourse of the House, involving morale and bonding, and Ministers relating to Back Benchers—was a very important issue in my mind. That is why I partly voted against these changes in the first place. Nevertheless, whatever my individual views may have been, a decision has been taken by the House and we have to allow a reasonable time to see how the experiment has worked before we take a decision. If modifications arise from specific issues—including, perhaps, issues raised by the Procedure Committee—it will of course be possible to make those modifications earlier than we anticipated when the House decided to have a review at the end of the full term of this Parliament.

Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the Leader of the House to his position. We on this side of the House hope that he will have a longer tenure in it than he has in his previous jobs. He is the most travelled Minister in the Government, having been at Defence, Transport, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as having been party chairman. We hope that he will be Leader of the House for a little longer than he was party chairman.
	As the President of the Council has realised today, a number of people would now welcome a review of the sitting hours before the end of the current Parliament—which is what the motion originally said. May I draw his attention to early-day motion 607, supported by a number of Members who originally supported the changes and now want a review? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind and give us a review. Although he says it is for the House to decide, it is of course for the Government to decide to find the time for us to discuss the matter.

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gracious welcome and his congratulations. It is true that during this Parliament I have accumulated—I sometimes think—more titles than Idi Amin. That has, in fact, a number of advantages: a moving target is always easier to hit, I suppose.
	I will be here at the behest of my Prime Minister, my Government and the House to serve as best I can.
	I do not think I can usefully add much to the answers I have given, other than to say that I note that the large number of Members who signed the early-day motion include some who have changed their minds pretty quickly. Nevertheless I think that all of us, whatever position we took, would accept that we should allow a reasonable amount of time for the experiment. I am sure that we will pay attention to any issues, problems and modifications that may arise, whether or not they concern private Members' Bills—particularly if they emanate from the Procedure Committee—and will be willing to adopt measures where appropriate, even before the expiry of the deadline set by Parliament.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

PDVN

David Taylor: What representations he has received on the stability of the PDVN for remote users; and if he will make a statement.

Archy Kirkwood: Although the Citrix service has coped well with increasing levels of demand, it is clear that it has not kept pace with the changing needs of Members and their staff. The Parliamentary Communications Directorate has been working on a new faster service built around a virtual private network. Work on the project is now well advanced, and the virtual private network will be available to Members later this year.

David Taylor: Over the last six years the power and performance of the PDVN on the parliamentary estate have become reasonably acceptable, but in the third year of the third millennium the speed and stability of information technology systems for non-metropolitan Members have become wholly unacceptable. I am pleased to learn that the IT strategy is not, for those of us who live beyond the M25, out of sight, out of mind. Is the hon. Gentleman confident that the new timetables will be deliverable?

Archy Kirkwood: I am confident that the technical trial of the private virtual network that we started last July has been a success. We are about to begin a user pilot, and I hope that if the results are acceptable and can be analysed, the new network will be available to Members before the summer recess.
	The one qualification that I would make—one that is of interest to all Members—is that the network will be available only to compliant machines provided by the PCD. Those with non-compliant machines will have to stick with the old Citrix service, which will continue to be provided. Those wishing to take advantage of the new service in the new year, however, would be well advised to obtain new compliant machines from the PCD if they do not already have them.

BILL PRESENTED

Community Prosecution Lawyers

Mr. Frank Field presented a Bill to establish the post of Community Prosecution Lawyer for each parliamentary constituency in England and Wales; to provide for the direct election of such Lawyers; to make arrangements for the role of such Lawyers in the prosecution of offences relating to anti-social behaviour; to establish the relationship between such Lawyers and the Crown Prosecution Service; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Points of Order

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following yesterday's exchanges in the House and the six questions on the use of cluster bombs, have you received a request from a Minister to make a statement on the guidelines issued to the forces on the use of such bombs and of multi-rocket launchers?

Mr. Speaker: No, I have not.

Richard Ottaway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 28 November, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that it was necessary to use public funds to underwrite the debts of British Energy in order for that company to keep going. The Department gave as its grounds two needs: security of supply and the safety of nuclear power stations. Two weeks ago, I tabled written questions asking for the assumptions on which that assertion was made. Last week, in written answers to me, the Department was unable to give me the evidence on which the assertion was made, as it was commercial in confidence.
	Public money is being used to underwrite a private company and it is impossible for Parliament to probe the basis of that policy because the Government are hiding behind the shield of commercial in confidence. Is there any way in which we can probe the basis on which the Government are using public funds to keep a company going in that way?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. As he knows, the Speaker's responsibilities relate to questions, not to answers. I have no responsibility for the content of ministerial answers. He may wish to consult the Table Office to see whether there is any other way of pursuing the information that he is seeking.

Robert Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is now nearly a fortnight since the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office suggested that the Prime Minister would make a statement following his meeting with President Bush. He is now involved in a second meeting with the United States gangster President, yet there is no statement. In the past fortnight, thousands of innocent men, women and children have lost their lives in Iraq, many of them bombed by American planes. Sometimes they have been killed, unfortunately, by British forces. Surely there should be a statement in the House, or has there been a change in the constitutional convention, with the Prime Minister being more accountable to the television media than to Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that the Prime Minister will make a statement before the Easter recess, and tomorrow is Prime Minister's questions.

Ann Cryer: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), Mr. Speaker. May I ask again for a statement by a Minister regarding the use of cluster bombs? Over past years, there have been many such requests, and we have signed up to the Ottawa agreement. The unexploded bombs that emanate from cluster bombs take on the characteristics of anti-personnel land mines and we should not be using them.

Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State for Defence has been a regular visitor to the House; he has made statements on several occasions. I clearly recall that he has been questioned on that matter. If he makes another statement, no doubt questions can be put on that matter again.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friends and I tabled a motion that the Anti-social Behaviour Bill that we are about to debate should be committed to a Special Standing Committee. As it has been published only recently, and as there was no draft Bill and only two weeks of consultation, we felt that there was a need to take evidence. We are told by the Clerks, whose advice I take and respect, that it is not possible for that motion to be selected because the motion in the name of the right hon. Member whose Bill it is, the Home Secretary, takes precedent.
	When I asked whether it would be possible to table an amendment to the programme motion to allow us to send the Bill to a Special Standing Committee instead of to a Standing Committee, I was told that we could table it but it could not be selected, debated or voted on because the programme motion had to be voted on forthwith. If the Government want a programme motion, how can hon. Members decide whether to have a Special Standing Committee to take evidence? Such a decision appears to be blocked. Surely that cannot be right.

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply, perhaps he will not have a further point of order. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asks about what will happen from now on. My concern is today's business—tomorrow's is a worry for another day. I understand that his motion can be decided on only if the programme motion is defeated. It is not for me to give him advice, but if I were in his shoes I would vote against the programme motion; then we could decide on his motion.

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for that guidance, but may I make it clear to you that in the Modernisation Committee and when we debated the new arrangements for programme motions in the House, there was no indication at all from any source—neither from the Government nor from anyone else—that this new system would preclude the passage of a motion to commit a Bill to a Special Standing Committee? I believe that we have been led up the garden path on this matter, and I hope that we will have some clarity on how we can prevent this situation from arising in future.

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter that the hon. Gentleman can take up with the Leader of the House. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is a flaw in the rules of the House, I should point out that, obviously, they are subject to change.

Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Defence has regularly visited the House to advise Members on the progress of the conflict with Iraq. However, each passing day reveals humanitarian issues of a growing size and number, and I wonder whether you have had any indication that the Secretary of State for International Development will be making a statement to the House, perhaps before the Easter recess, on this very important subject.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that there is a strong possibility that the Secretary of State will come to the House concerning this very important matter, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising it. Orders of the Day

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	In doing so, I am mindful of the number of Members who will endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and of the time limit on speeches. I shall therefore try to ensure that as many Members as possible can contribute to the debate on what I consider to be very important legislation, which will empower people across the country once and for all to get a grip on the scourge that bedevils their communities: the antisocial behaviour that makes other people's lives a misery.
	I need to make it clear at the outset that this legislative vehicle is just one part of the broader story laid out in the White Paper "Respect and Responsibility", which was published a few weeks ago. The interdepartmental approach means that other legislation and measures will be picked up by the relevant proposals laid out in provisions such as the draft Housing Bill, which was published last week. I am very gratified that ministerial colleagues from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Education and Skills, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have joined the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), and me today on the Front Bench. This is truly a cross-government endeavour to tackle a cross-government challenge.
	The Bill is of course a symbol of the need for a cultural change, not simply for legislative change. It is about putting alongside prevention and remedial action the key enforcement measures that send that signal to those involved in antisocial behaviour. Prevention will of course be crucial, as will offering people a chance to remedy their behaviour. However, if they do not believe that the measures currently available are sufficient—if their understanding is that there will be no consequences for their actions—it is not surprising that they continue to cock a snook at the police, at housing departments, and at their neighbours and the wider community. The Bill is an endeavour to send the signal that we are no longer prepared to tolerate such behaviour.
	I wish to reiterate my thanks to my colleagues and to my officials and advisers. I want to demonstrate that the establishment of the new antisocial behaviour unit—which again will have a cross-departmental remit—is an indication that we mean business, not merely by facilitating what will happen at local level but by driving the measures forward. In that way, there will be a foot constantly on the accelerator. We want to make sure that we check what is happening at local level, and that we encourage and support people at local level. We also want to ensure that there is cross-referencing with legislation that is before the House, or which has already gone through. That includes legislation being carried forward by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although it is excellent that work on the Bill has taken place across Departments and across Whitehall, this excellent Bill would have been even stronger if there had been full pre-legislative scrutiny? That would have allowed electors, people who work in housing offices, serving police officers and others to submit their views and to exchange ideas with Members of Parliament over a long period. As a result, this good Bill would have been made even better.

David Blunkett: I always think it desirable to have the maximum possible prior scrutiny of legislation. We have endeavoured to secure that and, over the next two years, my Department will work to ensure that, wherever possible, all Bills appearing in our legislative programme will be published in draft form. However, we were faced with two problems. First, we asked whether there had been sufficient debate about the scourge of antisocial behaviour, and which measures already on the statute book work, and which do not. Secondly, we wanted to take account of what extra powers constituents and those who represent them at local government level believe to be necessary.
	We knew, when we published the White Paper, that we would have to act swiftly. We therefore had to balance further scrutiny with the speed of implementation that would allow the people whom the Bill will empower to get on and do the job. In the end, we had to decide whether the people whom we represent would thank us if we promised them that we might do something in a year's time to bring in legislation that would be implemented in two or three years, or whether they would prefer us to get on with it now and implement the measures laid out in the Bill. On balance, we decided that the latter would be the better course.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary is committed to this Bill, which the Government announced in the Queen's Speech of 13 November. Why have the Government broken the Cabinet Office guidelines that specify that every Government Bill should have a minimum of 12 weeks' consultation? The Government could have introduced this Bill earlier. Many of the Home Secretary's colleagues in local government oppose many of the measures in the Bill, and many of the professionals involved in other parts of the Bill think that it is inappropriate, badly timed or unnecessary.

David Blunkett: The real difficulty with the Liberal Democrats is that they always want it both ways. They want to show the public that they are in favour of measures to enable people to protect themselves against antisocial behaviour, and then they want to use technical devices to slow the Bill down and avoid having to do anything about the problem. Local authorities will be responsible for implementing much of the Bill. I shall be very pleased indeed to contrast the effectiveness of those councils that are not controlled or influenced by the Liberal Democrats with the effectiveness of those that are. That will be a measure of the sort of commitment to dealing with the problem that we are looking for.

Tony Banks: rose—

Chris Grayling: rose—

David Blunkett: Before I give way again—we shall not get very far if we carry on at this rate—I want to tell the House that I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) is in the Chamber today. He spent the past two years going around the country, listening and responding to people, and finding out what the police and housing department staff thought about antisocial behaviour. Those people did not ask for longer consultation periods; they said, "For God's sake, get on with the job."
	I am bewildered by the numbers of people who seem to think that slowing down what politics and politicians are about is what the public want. The same idea is also evident in some of the public debate on this matter. What people say to me is that they are sick and tired of the gridlock that prevents Parliament and politicians from doing precisely the things that they have wanted for years. "When do we want it? Now!" is the usual slogan of flag-wavers in Parliament square. Well, we are giving it them now, and I am very pleased to do so.

Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Some of the worst antisocial behaviour is perpetrated by English football fans travelling abroad. That is covered by the Bill, but will my right hon. Friend have any discussions with Ministers and the Football Association about the possibility of preventing English fans from travelling to the return match against Turkey?

David Blunkett: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen did a first-class job on the measures that we have included in the Bill, and I am happy to consider how we might build on that. I will talk to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East, about the way in which we might respond. Of course, legislation has already prevented 1,500 people from travelling abroad.

Helen Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Blunkett: I shall, because my hon. Friend will never forgive me if I do not, and I live next door to her.

Helen Jackson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that one of the commonest complaints about antisocial behaviour concerns the misuse of fireworks? Will he ensure that urgent action is taken, either through this Bill or the Fireworks Bill, a private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), to control that misuse, which terrorises old people, youngsters and animals alike?

David Blunkett: I agree entirely. I was pleased to be able to come in for the Second Reading of that Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), and we shall facilitate it in every way we can to ensure that it arrives on the statute book as quickly as possible.

Chris Grayling: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: I shall give way once more, then make progress.

Chris Grayling: The Home Secretary rightly talks about the need for action. May I ask him to consider the fact that measures to deal with one aspect of antisocial behaviour—namely, traveller incursions, which are a particular problem in my constituency—are already on the statute book, but Home Office guidance to the police tells them not to use those measures? Will he ensure that that changes and that guidance does not dilute the impact of the work that he is trying to do?

David Blunkett: Let me be helpful. If guidance notes have gone out from my Department—not only on this issue, but on any others—that the police, local authorities or hon. Members on both sides of the House believe to be unhelpful, I will be happy to review them with Ministers immediately. We are in the business of breaking down barriers to implementation and preventing advice that may have gone out in the past, albeit with the best intentions, from disabling people in relation to carrying out their duties.
	This afternoon, we are reflecting on action that is required in the future, as well as measures that have already been implemented, and on how it can best and most effectively be facilitated. That picks up well on the point made by the hon. Gentleman. When we found out that antisocial behaviour orders were too bureaucratic and too difficult to implement, we slimmed them down through the Police Reform Act 2002, but the Bill contains measures that will help still further. We discovered that police could not easily take action in relation to abandoned vehicles and/or vehicles being used off-road. The 2002 Act helped with that, but in drafting future measures we will have to review what needs to be done. Those measures must be clear and helpful to those who have to struggle with bureaucracy, and they must ensure that people understand that they have to help themselves. The message is: "We will help you if you will help yourself, but if helping yourself entails making the lives of others a misery, we will make your life a misery instead." What is so despairing is the philosophy that we so often hear: "If that hasn't worked, nothing will." I do not believe that. If a measure has not worked, it wants to be set aside or revised, but we believe that our measures will work.
	That runs contrary to the myth that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has been a failure. I want to put it on record that my predecessor, who is now Foreign Secretary, and his team did not get the full measure of accord for that Act, which has been a substantial success. It established the Youth Justice Board and, from that, the youth offending teams. It had tremendous success in putting in place the measures successfully to implement the youth justice pledge on the speed with which we deal with young offenders. It established community safety partnerships, which can work better, but are a substantial success. Its key measures—the orders—have been a success. Those orders have been disparaged by Opposition Members, but let me reflect for a moment on just how successful some of them have been. So far, there have been 11,600 drug treatment and testing orders; 3,879 intensive supervision and surveillance orders; more than 18,000 reparation orders; just under 3,500 parenting orders; and more than 1,800 acceptable behaviour contracts. Through to November, before the interim orders were introduced, there were nearly 800 antisocial behaviour orders, even with all their difficulties. By the end of March, 3,000 fixed penalty notices had been issued in just four pilot areas. Those are successes, not failures.

Judy Mallaber: It is difficult to tackle antisocial behaviour effectively when it is so commonly seen in the home. For example, one in four women experience domestic violence at some point in their lives. To complement the Bill, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that legislation on domestic violence will be included in the next parliamentary Session, and press for that; and will he let us know when we can expect the promised consultation document on that issue?

David Blunkett: I intend, with parliamentary colleagues across Departments, to publish a consultation paper in the next few weeks. I also intend to publish a Bill in draft to enable people to scrutinise and comment on it, and over the next few months we shall bring forward other draft measures. I hope that that will take us forward in introducing what my hon. Friend rightly describes as a key complementary measure. So much of the tragedy of violence takes place in the home, and hon. Members on both sides of the House will want that to be addressed as quickly as possible.
	The key question in relation to such measures is, "Are they used and, if not, why not?" That has two key elements. First, can we slim down bureaucracy still further? The answer has to be yes, and I challenge anyone who feels that some measures are too bureaucratic to come forward with ideas about how we might achieve that. I am intent on building on the O'Dowd report in relation to the police—I will have more to say about that in the weeks ahead—and, at the same time, on slimming down bureaucracy in the criminal justice system. Both measures require urgent and focused attention, but they also require those who are implementing them to be positive about doing so, rather than simply saying, "I wish somebody would do something about it." The people who can help us to do something about it are often those who are implementing the bureaucratic measures, and I challenge them to help and assist us.

Julian Brazier: Does the Home Secretary accept that the biggest problem of all for the policeman on the job is the length of time that it takes to process suspects when they are arrested? Until that ridiculous length of time and vast volume of bureaucracy is tackled, policemen will remain extremely reluctant to use the powers that they already have.

David Blunkett: We are all concerned about that. The street charging measures that were thrown up by the O'Dowd report, fixed penalty notices, and the ability to use new technology to communicate directly back to the police station and the computer are all crucial in being able to do the job. We will have to examine not only the technology, but the way in which it is used.
	The second question is whether we can persuade people at local level to adopt particular measures. I am not talking simply about the better working of the police but about the way in which housing or environmental health officers respond. The best local staff do not want to pick up a telephone and say, "I really would like to help you but I don't have the power." What they would really like to say is, "I really would like to help you and, thank goodness, I now have the power. It is difficult, and I will have to come out and work antisocial hours, but I will now be able to assist you." Some people in professional organisations may have distanced themselves by promotion from the front line, but saying, "We don't want to implement these measures because they're inconvenient and make life difficult," is not the way to persuade the public to pay more council tax, income tax or VAT in order to fund those professionals' jobs.

Joan Humble: Will my right hon. Friend add social services departments to his list of those who should be contacted? Those departments are often already working with families, trying to support them in looking after young people who are behaving antisocially in their communities. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the important role of social services staff? Joint working between social services and the police must be enhanced.

David Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend, who spent time as a chair of social services in Lancashire. She is aware of these issues. Joint working is important.
	I can never resist hitting a ball over the net, so I have to say that there is a two-way street here. Social services have a key role in early intervention, and enforcement agencies should be positive at the stage when action and orders because of criminality are not yet necessary. It is important that the police and social services work together. However, it is also important that social services and youth offending teams know the moment when it is necessary to get tough—in other words, when to threaten enforcement. I was brought up on the estates that I have the privilege of representing, and my experience is that people rapidly get the message. If they get the message that they can get away with what they are doing, they will get away with it; if they get the message that someone will clamp down, it is amazing how quickly their behaviour can change.
	We need more staff to implement our proposals. I hope that fixed penalties will be able to fund the work of environmental health officers and others; and I hope that achieving better behaviour will assist housing officers to do a positive job rather than spending all their lives fruitlessly trying to deal with antisocial neighbours and tenants when they do not have the power to do so. Dealing with such people when they do have that power will save them time and energy. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is here and would agree with that.
	We also need more police and more of the police family. That is why, just a week or two ago, we were pleased to announce that in the 12 months up to September last year we had an increase of 4,337 police in England and Wales. That is the largest increase since 1976—which, of course, was under a previous Labour Government.

Liz Blackman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Blunkett: I cannot resist giving way because I know that my hon. Friend will want to say something positive about Wales. [Hon. Members: "Wales?"]

Liz Blackman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of the Bill is a partnership approach to challenging antisocial behaviour? Does he agree that protocols on information sharing have to be updated alongside all the other measures in the Bill to ensure that partners can work together effectively to challenge this scourge?

David Blunkett: Yes, I do agree—and I was thinking of the Wales that is just south of Sheffield rather than the Wales that is west of the Severn. [Laughter.]
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). The additional resources and policing available—and we are at a record total of 131,548, just to put that on the record, which is 1,500 more than we pledged for the end of March—will assist us to undertake the co-ordination about which my hon. Friend is asking.
	Let me turn to particular elements of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: About time—23 minutes in.

David Blunkett: Well, I have taken a great many interventions. I would be happy not to do so the next time I am on my feet, if that is what hon. Members want.
	Clauses 1 to 11 in part 1 deal with action against class A drugs and, in particular, crack houses, commercial or domestic. I am sure that the measures will be widely welcomed; they will be vigorously implemented because such places are a scourge of our time.

George Stevenson: Will my hon. Friend clarify a concern of mine about part 1? Why will the police have the power to close down premises that they believe are being used for the supply and use of class A drugs, but at the same time have to show that there has been nuisance or disorder? Why can they not close premises down simply if they are satisfied that class A drugs are being supplied or used?

David Blunkett: We wanted to be as clear as possible about the evidence base and the ability to get that evidence swiftly. The more complicated the situation, if we open up all sorts of vistas of challenge, the more likely it will be that people who have—let me choose my words carefully—legal expertise at their disposal will make a monkey of the measures and therefore make things more difficult.

James Clappison: Is not the Home Secretary's hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) making a very important point? The additional requirement on the police to prove that there has been disorder is something else for lawyers to get their hands on to prevent an order being made. With crack houses and the like, is it not inevitable that they bring in their trail misery, crime and social disorder?

David Blunkett: We are talking about the police being satisfied that dealing is taking place and that nuisance is being caused. On the issue of immediate action in closing and sealing, it is pretty important—even for those of us who want vigorous steps to be taken—to ensure that people cannot cause mischief in the process. We have consulted the police on this, and they are satisfied that they will have the power to take the necessary swift and effective action.
	Part 2 of the—

Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way? I really do apologise.

David Blunkett: If I did not give way to my right hon. Friend, I would be bedevilled either by a series of his letters or, even worse, one of his questions.

Gerald Kaufman: This is a question, and it relates to premises being used for drug trading. I take it that the Deputy Prime Minister's licensing measures will deal with the houses of private landlords where drug trading takes place, but will the definitions in the Bill be wide enough to take account of, for example, the Texaco filling station on Chapman street in my constituency, which has been used for drug trading, and telephone boxes, which, through incoming calls, can be used for drug trading as well?

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend is correct: the draft housing Bill will implement some of the White Paper's key proposals—which were widely supported—on licensing and the designation of particular areas. I am very pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Ministers in his Department have agreed to implement those measures vigorously. I will drop a line to my right hon. Friend, speedily, about the abuse of telephone boxes and other public areas in relation to drugs. Clauses in the Bill extend powers in relation to social landlords and the contracts that have to be drawn up. There will be published and enforceable policy statements so that tenants and landlords clearly know their rights and responsibilities. That is not the case at the moment. Speeding up injunctions will be a key element. Demoted tenancies are other aspects of part 2, as are ways in which we will speed up the process of dealing with antisocial behaviour on the housing front.

George Stevenson: I am enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. I have a worry about housing and I hope that he will be able to clarify the situation. Part 2 relates to local authorities, housing corporations and registered social landlords. Antisocial behaviour in my constituency has unfortunately been tracked to private landlords, but I can detect no mention of such people in the Bill.

David Blunkett: Issues relating to private landlords will be addressed in the housing Bill. I have indicated, as did the White Paper, that we are keen for the measure to be implemented and targeted carefully. It will provide for entirely new powers and will address the related issue of the withdrawal of automatic and direct payment of housing benefit. That measure has gained enormous support and I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues for their help to ensure that it has cross-departmental support.

Joan Walley: We are concerned that cross-cutting measures that relate to housing and the Home Office should come into operation before the Bill reaches the statute book by starting a pilot project. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that discussions are being held with his colleagues so that we may have a pilot scheme in Stoke-on-Trent?

David Blunkett: I congratulate my hon. Friend because in all the years that she has been in the House, I have never known her to miss a trick on pilot programmes. I am happy that discussions are taking place, and I know that the importance of the measures is acknowledged in the Potteries, which was reflected by her contribution and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). The provisions are especially important for areas in which traditional industries have been historically run down and very cheap properties are available. Necessary steps must be taken in such areas to stop exploitation.
	Part 3 relates to truancy, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education is here. [Hon. Members: "Where is she?"] She will not receive a fixed penalty notice because she has only just left the Chamber. I am sure that she wants to spend time supporting the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in his endeavours today on higher education.
	Part 3 will strengthen the ability to issue parenting contracts and to develop them as a prerequisite to the expanded parenting orders that address parents' actions. The orders will address not only parents who fail to take necessary action to support their children in going to school, but their behaviour on school premises. We want to strengthen the hand of head teachers and teachers who deal with the few parents whose behaviour is not only a terrible example to their children and others, but a disruption to the life and work of schools.

Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the success of parenting orders thus far is due in no small part to the alacrity with which they have been taken up by parents themselves? Surely that shows that many parents throughout the country are desperate for the support that parenting orders offer and that could be provided by programmes of positive parenting that were directed more universally.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Those who have run into difficulty, and those who fear that they might, have a deep desire to take parenting classes. We must ensure that parenting orders do not become a stigma for people who attend such classes. Every one of us who has been a parent will have despaired at least once, looked at the ceiling and wished that someone would give us a hand. Children no longer live in close proximity to their grandparents, aunts and uncles and so their relatives' good—and sometimes bad—ways cannot always be passed on. We need the scheme to be more readily available and to spread it more quickly so that it is an attractive proposition, and not only an enforcement measure for when things go drastically wrong.
	Part 4 addresses a matter of considerable interest that must be handled with great delicacy. The police know of small neighbourhoods or communities in which there is much antisocial behaviour and residents are bedevilled by gangs of youths, people who are out of hand and people against whom they know that the police would like to take action. Such people cock a snook at, and have total disrespect for, authority. We intend to give the police power, after consultation with the local authority, to designate such an area for six months to allow groups that are believed to be intimidating or to be causing a nuisance to be dispersed. That will send a signal that we are no longer prepared to put up with such intimidation, which can be deeply frightening and worrying, especially for elderly people. We do not intend the measure to be used to disperse young people who go about their lawful business or to deal with situations when two or more people are somehow perceived to form an intimidating group. However, we require more draconian action against people who deal in drugs and who are drunk and disorderly, often after binge drinking.

Peter Bradley: My right hon. Friend has anticipated much of my question. May I seek further reassurance about the implications of clause 29? It will give the police powers to disperse if
	"members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in public places".
	Will he assure me that the Bill will not make it unlawful for two, three or more people to gather on a street corner for social purposes?

David Blunkett: I am pleased to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The measure will be used when people refuse a police request to disperse and move on. The police will have the power to enforce the request and take immediate action. Problems do not exist in most places, but it is right to address severe difficulties that are experienced when lawlessness overwhelms a local community. If areas are designated, there will be an automatic power to lay down a curfew for an interim period to get a grip on the locality so that people feel safe to walk the streets again.
	No one in any part of the country should be unable to walk down their street to catch a bus or train, or to buy a newspaper or milk, because they fear that they might be attacked or abused. We must restore the culture in which they were not fearful, although that will take time. People who phone the police should be told that something will be done, rather than, "Don't trouble us with this because we've got more important things to do." People who phone an environmental health department should not be told, "We'd like to help but we can't", but instead, "We'd love to help, and we will." Housing officers should not say, "We're very upset about what is happening, but the situation is difficult", but instead say, "Yes, this is difficult but we are going to get together people in the locality and we will help you, with our new powers, to get a grip on the situation." If there is intent for that to happen, we can change the world together. That cannot be achieved, however, by us, the police, or housing or environmental health officers working alone, but by people joining together and being prepared to work together.

Matthew Green: rose—

Simon Hughes: Can the Home Secretary explain why young people will not think that the Government are picking on them? Why should people be more afraid of a group of 15-year-olds hanging around on a street corner than of a group of 21 or 25-year-olds? If he thinks that it is a real issue, why not give the police the power to disperse adults behaving badly as well as young people who are just standing around?

David Blunkett: If I read the hon. Gentleman right, anyone hanging about should be dealt with and dispersed.

Matthew Green: We are simply asking the question.

David Blunkett: And I am putting the question back to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to discover what he believes.

Simon Hughes: We do not advocate that.

David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman does not believe that anyone should be dispersed. He thinks that the powers to do that already exist, but if they were working satisfactorily, there would be no need to strengthen them, as I said. We must remember that the previous powers were done away with. The police on the beat tell me—I do listen to them because they are the best people to listen to—that they used to have those powers but that they were swept away when a wider range of unacceptable powers were removed. Older Members will remember those as the "sus" laws.

Simon Hughes: Why concentrate on a particular age group?

David Blunkett: Because respect is learned at that age and young people understand whether they can get away with things. However, the hon. Gentleman misses the point: such powers of dispersal do not exist. That is why we are introducing them.
	To facilitate unity within the Liberal Democrat ranks, I will give way to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who was originally trying to intervene.

Matthew Green: Will the Home Secretary confirm that if a policeman wants to disperse a group of youths, half a dozen of whom are 17 and half a dozen are 15, he can use the power to send the 15-year-olds home, but the 17-year-olds remain on the street corner?

David Blunkett: I am sure that the policeman would disperse all of them, having carefully analysed each person's date of birth. To quote my 20-year-old son, the hon. Gentleman should "get real." That is what he says to me. We are providing a power that is to be used sensitively and sensibly. If there is a serious concern about that in Committee, we will of course listen to it.

Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend should not be deflected from his course of action. The vast majority of people in my constituency, and I am sure across the country, will be delighted by the new powers to disperse groups of young people who are causing problems. The key to all the new powers will be their enforcement and use, and the cultural change that will ensue. Will my right hon. Friend outline again how he intends to encourage people to use the powers, including the power to disperse groups who are causing problems on street corners?

David Blunkett: I shall, but I think that we are going up a gum tree. Although curfews apply to younger people of 16 and below and allow for their removal to their homes, the powers of dispersal apply to everyone. I want to ensure that we are not misled by the misreading of the Bill by the Liberal Democrats.
	There are two issues to consider. The first is that the measures can be handled more speedily and therefore implemented quickly. The second is the reduction of bureaucracy. Above all, we must ensure that people at a local level are prepared to use the power. As I said, if people are not prepared to use it, we cannot make them, but local people can demand that the powers of enforcement are used. Part 5, which deals with sanctions, speeds up the issuing of antisocial behaviour orders further. It also relates to the enforcement powers for fixed penalty notices, in particular the ability to use those in the way in which they have been applied in the pilot areas. That will make a difference. I hope that the power that we are giving to chief constables to designate licensed agencies to use some of the more limited powers will enable us to spread the immediate implementation of the enforcement of such powers.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the Home Secretary for being so patient and giving way so often. Does he agree that the success of the dispersal powers depends on a policemen being available to do the dispersing? In my constituency, where we have the problem of youths congregating and intimidating local residents, no police officers are available to do that.

David Blunkett: It certainly does depend on that, which is why the 4,337 extra police, the 1,300 community support officers and, with the help of my hon. Friends in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the neighbourhood and street wardens that are being introduced across the country will all help to achieve that. That is also why the new power for chief constables to designate others in particular circumstances to use fixed penalty notices will make such a difference, as I hope it does in the hon. Lady's constituency.

Bill Tynan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Blunkett: I will, but I appeal to hon. Members to let me finish because it is important to move on to Members who have waited patiently to speak.

Bill Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for attending the Second Reading of the Fireworks Bill on 28 February. That was much appreciated.
	The point about the curfew, or the child safety initiative as it was called in my constituency, is that children as young as five and six were being left to wander the streets with older children. It was necessary for the police to pay attention to that to ensure that they were returned to their homes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the curfew has the additional effect of safeguarding younger children who are left to roam the streets at night?

David Blunkett: It is an important protective order for younger children, especially after 9 pm. Many people despair when children as young as five, six and seven are out on the streets at such a late hour. They are picked up and led by those who engage them in drug running and other activities that destroy their lives as well as the lives of those around them. I must again congratulate my hon. Friend on the Fireworks Bill and hope that it makes speedy progress.
	Part 6 of this Bill deals with firearms. We have spelt out what we intend to do about people who carry duplicate and converted weapons in a public place. We are clamping down on converted weaponry. We will introduce licensing measures and will ban the import and sale of such weapons. The new regulations on air weapons and the age group that can own them will also help. All those measures will have an important role to play in sending those critical and necessary signals.

Martin Salter: Notwithstanding the wide support that my right hon. Friend will deservedly receive for his attempts in part 6 to curb the antisocial menace arising from the irresponsible use of air weapons, does he accept that in banning the use of air weapons on private land for those aged between 14 and 17, the Bill will have the perverse effect of stopping a farmer's son shooting rats in his father's barn? I know that that is not the Government's intention. Will he assure the House that he will accept helpful amendments in Committee once he has received the necessary legal advice?

David Blunkett: On a previous occasion—the Criminal Justice Bill, I think—I made the mistake of saying that I am always in favour of helpful amendments, and there were hundreds of them. So I shall say cautiously that there is a real issue, and we are prepared to discuss it in Committee, as we should be, given that debates in Committee are intended to try to find solutions that do not lead to other difficulties. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that assurance.

Kate Hoey: I welcome the change that will ensure that people have to cover their guns and not carry loaded guns. However, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the guidance notes make it clear that the Bill will not prevent legitimate young shooters going to legitimate places to shoot? Will those people be covered by the reasonable exemptions, and will that be clearly stated?

David Blunkett: We are seeking good and lawful reasons for carrying weapons, and we need to ensure that the guidance is positive and helpful in that way. I am grateful to my hon. Friend enabling me to clarify that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In respect of part 6, does my right hon. Friend recognise the fact that there is another type of lethal weapon: the unauthorised, unlicensed use of scambler and off-road motorbikes? A fortnight ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) had a fatality in her constituency—a two-year-old was killed. There is frequent nuisance behaviour when such motorbikes are used on cycle paths and rights of way. They are a danger and a menace. Will he consider including powers in the Bill or elsewhere that will tackle that menace?

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend makes an essential point, which highlights a very real difficulty. Under the Police Reform Act 2002, we have provided the police with powers in relation to the off-road use of vehicles. The difficulty is, first, to ensure that they know the law and, secondly, that they are prepared to use it. I am not critical of them in that regard; we need to find better ways to communicate with the police than we have at the moment. We rely heavily on asking the Association of Chief Police Officers to do the communicating, which is perfectly reasonable because it is a management role, but it does not go far enough. We need very simple and easy to understand communication about what is on the statute book and how best to use it, and that is critical in dealing with off-road vehicles. I have the same problem in the locality in which I live, and it causes a menace to people, animals and the environment, which is often damaged as well.
	That brings me to part 7, which touches on the environment. First, there are new powers for environmental health officers, both commercial and domestic, to deal with noise nuisance. Noise nuisance—antisocial neighbour nuisance—is one of the scourges of our time and one of the things that upsets people most of all. It damages their health, and we need to deal with it. The clauses in part 7 also deal with things such as graffiti, fly posting, unauthorised tipping and the like. I hope that those proposals will be followed through by my good friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life, who is driving things forward, with his ministerial colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to ensure that we have a cleaner, safer and quieter environment.
	While I am here, I wish to say in passing that, although this is not in the Bill, I hope that, at some point, we will persuade manufacturers not to produce those wretched devices that lock and unlock people's car doors, making the most enormous noise at 6 am for no good purpose and making other people's lives a misery. I just wanted to get that off my chest. Finally, spray paints are just a damn nuisance.
	All this is designed to provide the enforcement measures, to send the right signals, to give people the right powers and, above all, to tell agencies and local people that we are making the legislative provisions and putting in place the direction, but, in the end, it is down to them to use them. If we want a better place to live—a safer, cleaner and better Britain—we have got to do it together.

Oliver Letwin: The fact that so many Labour Members have attended the Chamber and, we understand, are seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, is remarkable testimony to the extent to which they recognise the problem of disorder from which the British public are suffering after six years of Labour Government. They are right to be concerned about that, and the Home Secretary is right to be concerned about it, and the motives behind the Bill are good motives and ones that we share. I hope that Labour Members felt a rosy glow as they heard the Home Secretary go through the wonderful measures that he is going to introduce.
	I should say at the start that the Conservative party will certainly not oppose the Bill, but it suffers none the less from a few disadvantages when used for the purpose of propaganda by the Labour party at the local elections and thereafter. A few minor disadvantages, then: first, a large part of the Bill will do no more than make minor enlargements and refinements to existing powers; secondly, most of the changes are to the Government's own previous legislation, some of which has not yet been implemented; thirdly, a large part of the Bill will have absolutely no effect in practice; fourthly, other parts of it are unworkable; fifthly, some of it is entirely meaningless; and, finally, another part is of questionable good sense. It is therefore out of the Opposition's magnanimity that we choose to try to make it a better Bill in Committee, rather than to disrupt it at this stage.
	I have made a number of allegations, which deserve to be substantiated. The Home Secretary has given us a magnum opus, which I cannot replicate, not least—I apologise to the House for this—because I will be speaking about quite another matter in Westminster Hall at 2 o'clock, but I will seek to substantiate those remarks. I said first that a large part of the Bill represents only minor enlargement and refinements to existing powers. For example, the antisocial behaviour injunctions in part 2 tinker with the antisocial behaviour injunctions—our old friends—in the Housing Act 1996. I cannot see any significant improvement.
	The parenting contracts, which the Home Secretary mentioned in dealing with part 3, broadly replicate the home-school agreements under sections 110 and 111 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. In fact, they so closely replicate those measures that they replicate the fact that they are not compulsory and do not establish civil liabilities. The civil servants have obviously gone to great trouble to ensure that there is no advance on the previous legislation.
	The group dispersal powers—they were much discussed—in part 4 almost entirely replicate section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. In case the House does not believe me, I will read the relevant subsection of clause 29. [Interruption.] Oh, all right—Labour Members wish to spare me the trouble and to take it on trust. [Hon. Members: "Go on, read it out."] No, no, I resist the blandishments of my hon. Friends. I do not want to bore the House. Let me assure the House that the words are virtually identical.
	I turn to the fact that many of the changes are to the Government's own previous legislation, some of which has not yet even been implemented. Let us take the closure of crack houses in part 1. The previous Home Secretary introduced the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which amended section 8 of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Home Secretary has not yet implemented the 2001 Act. I take it that he has not yet done so because he has decided to change it. Part 1 represents a change to the 2001 Act, which was introduced by his predecessor, but it has not yet been implemented.
	The parenting orders in part 3 represent a revision of section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, by which the previous Home Secretary introduced parenting orders. The revisions are not very substantial, but I take it that the present Home Secretary wants to make sure that he is the person who has the parenting orders under his name rather than his predecessor.
	Then we come to those parts that will have no effect in practice. The Home Secretary mentioned the closure orders for noisy premises in part 7. This is most interesting, and I draw it to the attention of Labour Members because I hope that they will go out to their constituencies and local authorities and explain exactly what this part of the Bill actually does. It is presumably designed to make it more difficult to hold a rave. How does it do that? It does that by ensuring that premises that have a premises licence or a temporary event notice can be closed for 24 hours.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Oliver Letwin: If hon. Members will forgive me, I will not give way at this stage.
	I am not an expert on raves—I have never attended a rave—but I rather have the impression that there are few holders of raves who seek temporary event notices under the licensing laws, and still fewer who seek premises licences.The Licensing Bill provides for premises licences but the process is lengthy and I doubt whether the average rave organiser would know how to fulfil it. If the rave does not possess a premises licence or have a temporary event notice attached to it, this Bill confers no power whatever to close it down. I admit that I am flabbergasted by that omission and we shall try to do something about it in Committee.
	My favourite example—it is positively majestic—occurs in clause 42. What is the effect of that clause? It is that a person under 17 who is carrying an unloaded airgun in a case—a locked gun case—in a public place, who has a reasonable explanation for doing so and was previously legal will be illegal. That will dramatically affect the level of gun crime in this country. In fact, it will particularly affect any 16-year-old who knows how to fire an unloaded airgun without removing it from its case in a public place. That is a majestic provision.

David Blunkett: Very funny.

Oliver Letwin: It would be funny were it not true.
	I said that some of the Bill would be unworkable in rural areas—a point to which I hesitate to draw the attention of Labour Ministers, very few of whom have anything to do with rural areas. However, those of us who are local yokels with straw in our teeth are aware that it is the practice in rural areas for 16-year-olds to go around farmyards dispersing chickens—not raves or groups of young men—with airguns. However, under clause 43, subsection (4)(a), that will be illegal. I take it that the one policeman to be found in the length and breadth of rural England will be sent to prevent that 16-year-old from walking around his own farm dispersing chickens.
	That will, of course, never happen, but much more serious is the issuing of fixed penalty notices in schools. That is an extremely important indication of the type of problem that we shall have to deal with in Committee. Clause 22 states that an authorised officer can give a penalty notice for truancy. That does not sound too bad, until one studies the definitions of "authorised officer" on page 19 where there is a lengthy process of successive approximation that I take it has been concocted to try to ensure that anyone not reading the Bill closely will not notice what is going on.
	An "authorised officer" includes an "authorised staff member" and an "authorised staff member" is subsequently defined as including
	"a member of the staff".
	For the first time in British history and, as far as I can discover, with no international precedent, we have the mind-numbing idea that teachers could hand out fixed penalty notices to the parents of children at their school. I cannot imagine how the Home Secretary imagines that such a provision would be workable and I hope that we can change it in Committee.

Henry Bellingham: The parenting orders in clause 25 are all very well, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the real problem arises when children are excluded from school, often for appalling behaviour, and the decision is reversed on appeal, often with the result that the credibility of the school, its governors and its head suffers enormously?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is right. That is why our hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, has rightly proposed that head teachers should be given sole power to order exclusions and that there should be no provision for them to be overruled. That would be a serious piece of legislation. Perhaps, within the long title of the Bill, we could introduce it as an amendment.
	I asserted that some of the Bill is meaningless. In clause 12, we are told something that will dizzy and appal every neighbour from hell in Britain. When they read the provisions they will be absolutely terrified. We are told that the social landlord
	"must prepare...a policy in relation to anti-social behaviour...must publish a statement of the policy"— and
	"from time to time keep the policy...under review".
	There is nothing wrong with that. Why should there not be policies on dealing with antisocial behaviour? Every registered social landlord whom I have been able to ring in the last 24 hours has told me that they already have such policies. The Bill will make it a legal requirement for them to have such policies. Fine. Excellent. However, if anyone imagines that anything will change as a result of landlords adopting, publishing and reviewing such policies, they are dreaming.
	Finally, I asserted that some of the Bill is questionable—although not much of it. If there were so much as to be worrying, or if much of the Bill was positively counterproductive, we should have to vote against it, but that is not the case. I hope that the Home Secretary will pause to reflect on at least one aspect of the Bill, however, as it would move us in a strange direction. It relates to the widening of the powers of community support officers in parts 4, 5 and 7. CSOs are to have the powers to disperse groups, to stop cycles—I admit that is not a great matter—and finally, under clause 51, to issue fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting.
	In principle, there is nothing objectionable in CSOs having such powers. However, they were given one set of powers initially, yet now, not many months after the measure that established CSOs, another Bill would add to those powers. I have no material doubt that it will not be long before the Home Secretary comes along with another new Bill—indeed, many new Bills. He is a serial offender as regards the production of legislation, or perhaps I should say that he is the most energetic Home Secretary since the war—something that horrifies those of us who have to shadow him. I fear, however, that it will be worse than just more legislation; there will be more legislation that gives more powers to CSOs. What will that do? Very gradually, it will recreate something that we already know: it is called a police force. It is time for the Home Secretary to ask himself whether he really needs CSOs. Should he not admit that he is moving towards making them police officers and actually do so? We could then stop quarrelling about whether the use of CSOs is right or wrong and whether they are policing on the cheap because we would have turned them into police officers.
	The Bill is a crabwise assault on that proposition and that is misleading.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's reservations, does he agree with Henry Ward Beecher who, 147 years ago, noted that laws tend to gravitate downwards? He said:
	"Like clocks, they must be cleansed, and wound up, and set to true time".
	That is the purpose of the Bill.

Oliver Letwin: Yes, but the problem is that, in many respects, the Bill is like a clock that is stuck at five to one and is right only once every 24 hours—[Hon. Members: "Twice!"] I am so sorry; it is right twice in every 24 hours. Labour Members are awake—I am grateful for that.
	Alas, the problem is that in order to make the Bill useful, it would need to include something really useful: people to enforce it. If there were 40,000 additional police officers, which the Conservatives are committed to providing, it would be worth paying attention to brushing up the legislation. The record of all parties over 50 years is inadequate. I do not deny that. It is time that the Home Secretary and the Government admitted that for 50 years we have failed to notice what Civitas revealed last weekend: just after the war, there were three crimes per police officer; nowadays, there are more than 40. We have been systematically underpoliced. There should be consensus on both sides of the House that we should not be fiddling while Rome burns; what we need is not tinkering or amelioration, with little bits of legislation here and there, but a step change in the policing of this country.

George Stevenson: The right hon. Gentleman is beginning to give the impression that he is enthusiastically negative about the Bill. I am listening carefully to his speech and am astounded to hear that the Opposition do not intend to vote against Second Reading. Surely he has the good grace to acknowledge that the Government have more than met their target for more police officers. During the past 12 months, we have appointed 4,500 additional police officers, which puts the Conservative record into the distant past.

Oliver Letwin: That is a charming rewriting of history. When a Government inherit a police force, diminish it, raise its numbers to just above where the previous Government left them and claim that as a world record, they are, in a literal sense, telling the truth. However, everyone in the country knows that we have been systematically underpoliced. To reply to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, we are not voting against the Bill because it is not worth doing so. It is not a Bill that deserves to be voted against; it deserves to be slightly improved in Committee and permanently forgotten. A year from now, few people will even be able to remember that it existed.
	The important point to arise from this debate—20 minutes of which was taken up by the Home Secretary before he even mentioned the Bill—and the thing that deserves to be remembered about it is the fact that the Bill is a prolonged form of legislative press release. This is a Bill designed to show that the Government are doing something about antisocial behaviour. I know it is difficult to do something real—I know it is difficult to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to liberate the funds for the policing that we need; I know it is difficult to get young people off the conveyor belt to crime—but the fact is that tinkering with their own laws, passed not many months ago, or with other laws that are perfectly adequate, is no substitute for really tackling the problem. I would call the Bill a half measure but in fact it is a quarter measure, and I wish the Home Secretary luck of it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute limit on all Back-Bench Members' speeches.

Simon Hughes: As I pointed out to the Home Secretary earlier and to Mr. Speaker on a point of order, the Bill has come to us after an extremely short consultation process. Liberal Democrat Members find it an unsatisfactory muddle of a Bill because there has been no proper preparation for the legislative process that is before us. There has been no draft Bill. Mini-consultation has taken place on certain aspects of the Bill, but that was too short to enable real members of the real public to respond.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: No, not yet.
	There has been no chance for the Home Affairs Select Committee to consider the Bill and to produce a report on it. There has been no chance for the Joint Committee on Human Rights of both Houses, which is meant to advise us on legislation, to take evidence and report on the Bill. There is a series of checks and balances that are meant to be built in before we legislate to ensure that we get legislation right. None of these procedures has been followed. I understand that on the Conservative Opposition Benches and certainly on the Liberal Democrat Benches—if people are honest, I hope that this applies on the Labour Benches—Members feel that there is much in the Bill that should not have legislative effect. That is not surprising. It is—[Interruption.] I shall set out exactly the things to which I am referring. Many provisions in the Bill are also clearly afterthoughts. They could have been dealt with in legislation that has been introduced in the past year or so, but the Government refused to do that, or did not want to. There are other provisions that are dangerous and should not be in proposed legislation.
	That is why we have sought to use the procedure that the House arranged that it could have to commit the Bill to a place where we could take evidence, where we could hear from those who have views about the Bill and where—

Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: No. In a second, I will give way.
	We could have heard from the Local Government Association, which is meant to be involved in implementing many of the things that are before us. It has spoken strongly against large parts of the Bill.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: No. I have said that to the hon. Lady already.
	The LGA, which is dominated by the Labour party, is clear that some parts of the Bill are unnecessary and that other parts are badly intentioned. Those are examples of why a proper legislative process should have taken place. In answer to the Home Secretary's suggestion that we should legislate every time the people in Parliament square shout, "What do we want, we want it now?", that is sometimes the problem of his Department's response. It listens to the initial voice and does not think through the implications. That is why his Department legislates so much. That is why it has to regularly revisit legislation that it put on to the statute book only the previous year.
	The great Home Secretary of the last half of the previous century was a then Labour Home Secretary not famous for much more legislation. The great, late Roy Jenkins is famous for decriminalising and repealing legislation—getting rid of legislation—not for adding more and more legislation.

David Blunkett: I want to put on record how much I admire the work of the late Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary. I admired in particular the way in which he embraced private Members' Bills as his own in order not to legislate through the normal process.

Simon Hughes: That may show a respect for Back-Bench Members and an ability to involve them in the parliamentary process. To be fair, I have just heard the Home Secretary say to one of his colleagues that having listened to a debate on a piece of legislation from Back-Bench Members of the Labour party on fireworks, that is a measure that he proposes to support.

James Clappison: Given the hon. Gentleman's wish to tackle antisocial behaviour and his respect for private Members' Bills, does he regret the opposition that the Liberal party showed to the Bill that was introduced by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to tackle antisocial tenants, by scuppering that Bill and using every possible means within the private Members' Bill system to bring it to a halt?

Simon Hughes: Not in the slightest. That is because parliamentary processes are equal for us all to use. My party has argued for greater rights for Back Benchers. However, when a Back Bencher comes up with a misguided proposal, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) did, we will strongly oppose it. We did so at the time and we would do so again. We know that it was also strongly opposed in parts of government. We know about the rows that took place in government. That is why housing benefit removal and child benefit removal are not in the Bill, thank God. We hope that they will not later be included in the Bill either. We respect—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get back to the content of the bill.

Simon Hughes: The matter arose because—

Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman knows that in the Housing Bill that we shall gain the Government may seek powers to consult local communities on whether they think that the Bill, on which he and his colleagues spoke out, should be given legislative effect. Would he like that consultation to take place in his constituency so that we could hear the views of his voters rather than his own bias against the measure?

Simon Hughes: I am happy that people are consulted in all constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman should read the evidence of the Local Government Association and that of the Mayor of London in response to these issues. The arguments for taking money away from people, including penalising the poor and the disadvantaged, as an immediate response to antisocial behaviour lead to more marginalising, more alienating and making it more difficult for people who are already at the bottom end of the social scale. I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman, who has fallen for the populist trap rather than the principled trap, and is appealing to the populists in his constituency and not properly looking after those who are often the most socially disadvantaged and who need help rather than punishment.

George Stevenson: Given the hon. Gentleman's scathing criticism of the Bill so far and his criticism of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for bringing forward the measure, will he give the House the benefit of his thoughts about whether his party will be voting for or against the Bill on Second Reading?

Simon Hughes: I can give the hon. Gentleman the answer now. The Bill is a muddle; it is a mixture. There are some good provisions and some unnecessary provisions. We will not fall into the Labour party's trap. The Bill is being presented this month only because there are local elections next month. We know the truth. That is the reality. It is a political ploy of a Bill. It is a shop window of a Bill. It is a window dressing of a Bill. If the Committee is sensible, if the House is sensible, and certainly if the House of Lords is sensible, large parts of the Bill will be removed before it reaches the statute book. Other large parts of the Bill will be amended. We shall then have a Bill that is left with a few decent bits that we want to see enacted. That is why we shall not vote against its Second Reading. However, if the Bill is not improved and if the rubbish is not taken out of it, we shall vote against its Third Reading. We shall then seek to amend it in the Lords in the hope that we shall get a Bill that is worthy of Parliament, not a Bill that was pulled off the shelves in the Home Office and cobbled together as a pre-election gimmick. Such a Bill would not befit the concentration of the Departments in question, many of which have their own Bills. They should be introducing education measures and housing measures, for example.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that representations have not been made to me as a Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency? There are 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland, but the Bill does not extend to them. Quite frankly, the people of North Down are as entitled to protection from antisocial behaviour as the people of north Devon and north Wales.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady knows that I always argue for legislation that treats the people of Northern Ireland equally. Had there been proper consultation about a properly thought-through Bill, we could have considered whether more powers should be devolved to Wales, and whether Northern Ireland wanted its own legislation, which it could amend, or wanted to be part of this legislation. None of that, however has been possible—it is an England and Wales Bill with a bit of a Wales opt-out, an occasional Scottish add-on and no Northern Ireland component at all.

Lady Hermon: Actually, the people of Northern Ireland have no choice. Responsibility for criminal justice and policing remains with Westminster, as it has for 30 years, even—and I hope that talks with my colleagues at Hillsborough are successful—if the Assembly is restored. Criminal justice was not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly before suspension, and is not likely to be, so responsibility rests squarely with Westminster. It is disgraceful that we fall far short in Northern Ireland of the protection that we rightly deserve.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady argues assiduously, as she did throughout the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, that Northern Ireland electors and Members of Parliament should be treated equally in deciding what criminal justice legislation they want. I hope that Ministers will pass that on to the new Leader of the House, who has been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who understands the issue, and may be sympathetic to the hon. Lady's representations.
	Because the Bill is an antisocial behaviour measure, we look in it for a definition of antisocial behaviour but, of course, there is none. There is no consistent terminology in the Bill. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), appeared before the Select Committee on Home Affairs and was honest in saying that he had literally picked up the brief the previous week, so was less prepared than the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) would have been had he remained in office. That is not a criticism—as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am very supportive of him. However, when he was asked how he defined antisocial behaviour, he did not have such a definition because the Government have not provided one.
	The danger is that the Bill confuses things. In the past, people knew where they stood. For example, if you committed a crime you went through the court process. The police and courts were involved and you were punished and sent to prison. There was a formal process and appeal, and proof beyond reasonable doubt was required. We are now putting other things into the pot. Annoyance may attract a criminal penalty, as may nuisance, but the civil process has less protection, and there is a risk that the Government may be muddling the old criminal law with new processes which they think are necessary but which entail certain dangers.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: No.
	Can I tell the Home Secretary that while there are some things in the Bill that clearly need to be dealt with by criminal law such as the misuse of crack cocaine and firearms, other things may not be such obvious candidates for the use of criminal law? Dropping litter is not in the same league as misuse of a firearm.
	I hope that the Government will accept my next point in their cooler and more rational moments. It is important that we do not judge people so harshly that we build a society where all sorts of relatively minor antisocial behaviour becomes a serious handicap for them later in their adult life. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), when we were debating the Criminal Justice Bill the other day on Report, pointed out that under that measure someone's previous record of behaviour could be used in evidence against them in the criminal courts. There was a danger, he pointed out, that people's opinions about someone's behaviour would mark them, making it more likely that they would be convicted of a crime. Down that road lies the big brother state. Sometimes I think that the Home Secretary is in favour of that state—[Interruption.] That seems especially so, as has just been said, when he is the big brother. I resist that move, and I hope that he will make it clear that we should have much more devolution of power, not centralised power. We should try, not to criminalise more people and lock them up, but to make sure that they behave without being criminalised, without a criminal record and without ending up in prison.

David Blunkett: I just want to put on record the fact that I am not in favour of the big brother or big sister state. I am in favour of introducing measures that provide for a civilised, acceptable level of behaviour in a civilised world where people can live in peace and quiet. That would avoid a situation in which some people's response to an ever-increasing dysfunctionality in communities, disrespect and the likelihood of disorder is such that a big brother state is appealing precisely because it would do the things that the hon. Gentleman spoke about. Those people are so sick and tired of things disintegrating around them that they would turn to extremes. That is my philosophy.

Simon Hughes: I share that objective with the Home Secretary, which is why we must be careful—I am sure that he understands this—not to legislate where we do not need to. We must always look first at prevention, rather than punishment, and must always look for things like mediation—tried and tested alternatives which work on the ground—and things that, as he has rightly said, build on the excellent work of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the partnerships that have been developed and many of the pilot schemes and initiatives that he, his Government, the Youth Justice Board and local government around the country have initiated.
	There is much good news out there—so much, in fact, that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, was on the radio and television the other day working hard to persuade the nation that crime figures were going down again. I agree, and have said so. However, the Bill does not appear to be a response to the fact that those figures are going down—it appears to be a response to the fact that fear of crime is still high. Legislating because people are afraid of crime, as opposed to legislating because of things that people actually do, is a dangerous road to go down.
	May I make a couple of practical suggestions to Ministers? They have contemplated in linked legislation amending the laws on begging. Begging has been a crime since 1824, but beggars have not disappeared because it is illegal. Ticket touting has been illegal for years, but ticket touts have not disappeared because it is illegal. Busking has not been permitted for years, but buskers have not vanished because it is illegal. The Home Office appears to believe that if you legislate against people they disappear. If you legislate against activity, it stops. May I tell Ministers that that does not usually happen? It is much better to take alternative positive action on the ground.

Bob Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman do himself a favour and not misrepresent the facts? Begging is already illegal, as he knows, and we fine beggars. We do not register them or check up on their behaviour or the reasons for it. We do not use that begging to get them the drug treatment that it is estimated 86 per cent. of them need. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is what we are proposing to do—why does he seek to misrepresent it?

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I said that begging has been illegal since 1824. He is right that the issue is often that those people have mental illnesses, drug addiction problems and alcohol addiction problems, and are homeless. The remedy is not to make them more criminal. The remedy is both to provide treatment for drug abuse, which the Under-Secretary is working on, but which is not yet available throughout the country, and to provide the resources for housing departments that local authorities ask for so that the homeless can be housed more quickly and effectively. Local authorities are not responding to the Bill by saying, "Yes, we want all those laws," they are saying, "Give us the resources to do the things that we know we have to do." Just blaming people and giving out more criminal records is a dangerous way to go. That is the way that America has gone. In Britain, 30 per cent of adults under 30 have a criminal record. If we take up the opportunity of giving out penalty tickets and fines to 13-year-olds, what sort of future will we condemn them to? If we begin to treat young people's experiences as a problem, not as an opportunity, which is what the Bill hints at, what sort of a message are we sending them?

Helen Jones: rose—

Simon Hughes: I want to make two more substantive remarks and conclude, so that other colleagues can get in.
	There are many things that we can do. We can make sure that housing allocation policies work better, so that families and communities are kept together and not separated. We can make sure that schools are given more power to run their own show, rather than passing more laws enforcing measures from above. We can design and build housing estates that make it less easy, rather than easier, for people to commit crime.
	Of course some things are difficult. We have a world where young people sit in front of computers, where they communicate less and where parents talk to them less. I was at a gun crime memorial service the other day in Peckham, and the call to families was, "Speak to your children more." The Mums against Guns were saying, "We must speak to our children more. The dads must speak to their children more. We must have more communication." We do not want young people punished, marginalised and criminalised at a young age.
	The Government are going down the wrong road. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was a good thing. The youth offender teams are good things. The Youth Justice Board is a good thing. They have all done good work, and we should build on them. We should see the evidence of what works. In my borough, there are many successful schemes. The Karrot scheme and incentives for young people work. Southwark Mediation works. Neighbourhood wardens work. Kickstart works. Splash works. More police work.
	I was in Watford on Sunday. The new Liberal Democrat mayor of Watford has just provided space for a skateboard park by the pyramid in the middle of town. I met some young people who said that they wanted that, to stop them getting up the nose of people in the town centre. They want to be able to do their own thing in a way that does not get them into trouble. Such schemes work.
	Curfews do not work; they have never been used. Giving an 11-year-old a penalty notice will not work. Making teachers, local education authorities and education welfare officers behave like police officers will not work. It should be the police, not the teacher, the designated member of staff or the local education authority, who decide whether somebody has committed an offence. We must make sure we separate those responsible for supporting and developing young people, and those responsible for criminalising them. Unless we change the Bill significantly, there is a danger that we will yet again legislate in haste and repent at leisure.
	It is sad that the Bill does not mention social services. [Interruption.] If it does it barely mentions them; there is certainly not a section on social services. There is a section on education, a section on housing, a section on firearms and a section on drugs, but the effective agency for picking up the youngsters in dysfunctional families who are liable to commit crimes are the social services departments, which are overstretched and burdened and asking for more resources.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) recently went on an official visit to Sweden, where children are normally not regarded as being capable of being put in the criminal justice system until they are over 16. They are seen as people who need help, support and educational back-up. Sweden has a much higher success rate than we do and its approach is much more effective. We must look around us and learn the lessons of other countries. [Interruption.]
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who has tried to intervene about 16 times, asks what we would say. We say: nationalise the mediation process across every local authority. [Interruption.] I mean spread it across the country. I would not be against it being nationalised. We should make sure that social services and education departments have the resources that they need to do what they know works. We should make sure that community punishment is visible in the community. We should make sure we have many more youth and community workers, who can be positive role models for young people. We should make sure that we have restorative justice and schemes such as the Dundee family project, which helps families who are not very good at bringing up their children.
	As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), we should not spend time legislating for landlords to have policies and procedures to deal with antisocial tenants, when they do not need legislation to do that. Most of them do it anyway. We do not need to legislate for parenting contracts, which are voluntary and so, by definition, do not need legislation. We certainly do not need parenting orders to be issued at the instigation of teachers and the LEAs. If disciplinary sanctions are needed, those should be exercised by the forces responsible for discipline.

Dari Taylor: That is the second time this afternoon that it has been stated in the Chamber that landlords do not need orders that define good policies and the way in which good or bad tenants are treated by them. The hon. Gentleman is well wrong. In my constituency we have faceless landlords, who are buying up streets and renting out the properties. Those are often giro drops. We need some control over that if we are to assert that criminality is not acceptable in my community.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady and I are not at cross-purposes. She is arguing that we need to regulate the private sector; I agree. That is being done in the housing Bill, which is out for consultation. That is where the parts of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill that deal with housing should be. We should not be debating demoted tenancies, which I happen to support, probationary tenancies and such conditional tenancies in the context of a Bill about law and order. Those should be dealt with in a housing Bill.
	We should also consider how we deal with the private, the local authority and the housing association sectors. I am fed up with the fact that in my community there are powers that can be imposed on local authority tenants and their kids, and on housing association tenants and their kids in Rotherhithe, but not on the private sector tenants and their kids who live in the houses next door. Those powers should not be considered in the context of this Bill. The same applies to education. We have had six education Bills in the past seven years. If we want to change the powers that apply to education, that should be done in the context of legislation on education, not in the present Bill.
	I end with two points, one of which relates to fixed penalty notices. I urge Ministers to hear what was said from the Conservative Front Bench earlier, what has been said before, and what we say. Fixed penalty notices should not be handed out by people who are not police officers or employees of the police service, with one or two exceptions such as environmental health officers, who have had a traditional role. The Bill tries to do again what Parliament last year said it did not want. Parliament said last year that it did not want the private security officer to be able to hand out fixed penalty notices. We say that today, as we said last year. The Government should have heard that last year and taken it to heart, and should not try again to push at a door that Parliament has already closed.

Shona McIsaac: rose—

George Stevenson: rose—

Simon Hughes: No. I also hope the Government are not serious about fixed penalty notices being given to under-16s. There may be an argument for new penalties for over-16s. There may be an argument for legislating in relation to over-16s in certain respects. I am willing to accept that there is an argument for banning the sale of spray paint to under-16s, though why on earth its sale to over-16s should be banned I fail to understand. If they are adults who can work, pay taxes and serve the country, I do not understand why they cannot go shopping and buy what they want. If the Government think it reasonable to issue fixed penalty notices—fines—directly to 11, 12 and 13-year-olds, which is the power that the Bill permits the Home Secretary to introduce, I ask them to think again.
	The Bill contains important proposals for dealing with drugs and firearms. If the Government left it at that, it would have support from the Opposition parties and more widely. The Government have chosen to throw all sorts of other measures into the Bill. It is a muddled Bill, in some parts, unfortunately, it is misconceived, and in many respects it is unnecessary. We will do all we can in Committee to make it a much better Bill, but I sincerely hope that the Government hear the voices in the Chamber and outside, and take out all the provisions that are wrong or which should not have been in the Bill in the first place.

Karen Buck: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	Again and again in 13 years as a Member of Parliament and as a councillor, I have sat down with groups of residents who are angry and frustrated about the persistent problems of crime, drug abuse and antisocial behaviour on their estates. Although it is probably not stated often enough, it is an article of faith that the more deprived a community is, the more damaging the impact of such behaviour will be, as neighbourhoods spiral further out of control and desirability and can end up exclusively as ghettos of the poor and deprived.
	It is often not realised that young people are the victims of crime as least as much as they are its perpetrators. A recent survey conducted among young people by the youth parliament in my constituency drew out the fact that fear of crime, bullying, harassment and intimidation are among the principal concerns of young people living in the inner city. It is extremely important that we recognise that it is for the sake of future generations and as well as of pensioners and other residents, who also live in fear of crime, that we take some of the measures set out in the Bill.
	The Bill contains much that is very welcome and that I support wholeheartedly, although I have one or two concerns that I want to flag up. Antisocial behaviour lies at the heart of the increase in fear of crime. It has already been mentioned that, despite the fall in crime figures across the board in recent years, the latest British crime survey shows a sharp increase in the number of people reporting fear of crime. I hate to describe some types of criminal behaviour as "lower level", but it is the range of behaviour that we understand to be antisocial that is part of the problem.
	Mention has also been made of the fact that there is a lot of good news that we can talk about in most of our local areas. I am very pleased with the progress that has been made on so many fronts in my constituency as a consequence of actions put in place since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Some projects have been funded in my constituency by sources such as the neighbourhood renewal fund, and the neighbourhood warden schemes have been positively triumphant in raising community awareness in terms of being eyes and ears on the street, building good connections with the local community and being part of the wider crime-reduction family.
	On one of my estates, which has been plagued for years with persistent antisocial behaviour, we recently launched Britain's first mobile police station, which was in situ offering local residents a visible demonstration of police presence and a commitment to action. Last summer saw Operation Puma, a police crackdown on crime and antisocial behaviour that occurred during the summer holidays. The operation had a very beneficial effect across our estates. Police have also been working with secondary schools, some of which have had very serious crime and antisocial behaviour problems in the past.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has expressed to me his recognition of the very important contribution made by the rapid reaction crack protocol drawn up in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It is now received wisdom among crack addicts in north London that the one place where they do not want to be is Notting Hill, where the authorities come down on them like a ton of bricks. Unfortunately, one of the perverse consequences of the success of the rapid reaction crack protocol is that crack addiction and crack houses now tend not to open up in north Kensington and are being displaced to Brent and Paddington. I am delighted to say that Westminster police have now adopted the protocol, but other boroughs have not done so. While I welcome the additional powers in the Bill to enable a swift response to crack houses, may I therefore commend to Ministers' consideration the fact that we want every area, and every partnership between police and social landlords or other local agencies, to sign up to that model of excellent practice? In north Kensington, it has resulted in the closure of crack houses within a few days and sometimes within 48 hours. That has been a very successful example of good practice.
	The other excellent example of good practice is the youth inclusion project, which has been working for a couple of years in an area with serious problems of crime and antisocial behaviour—the Dalgarno estates in north Kensington. I understand that such projects have managed nationally to achieve a 30 per cent. reduction in arrests. Locally, eight out of 10 young people with previous convictions among the top 50 who are known to be at risk of offending in north Kensington are linked to the youth inclusion project—an example of long-term, in-depth work that diverts young people away from crime and has a proven track record.
	Some of my concerns about the Bill and about other ways in which we are responding to antisocial behaviour relate to resource constraints. In my area, policing is a particular concern. Unfortunately, Westminster still has 500 fewer police than 10 years ago. Due to problems with the census count, we have been unable to benefit from any additional police officers through the resource allocation formula in London. Although London is seeing a significant and welcome increase in the number of police officers, in areas of central London such as mine, we are still under-policed, so the very welcome additional resources provided in respect of neighbourhood wardens and community support officers are still offset to some extent by the fact that too few police are available to work with our local communities.
	The other worry is that the neighbourhood renewal fund and similar Government resources directed to deprived areas to help us tackle crime are sometimes offset by reductions in local authority discretionary expenditure. Ministers should be extremely aware of that issue. Cuts in important services such as the youth service and children's play facilities mean that young people who would otherwise benefit from such facilities are out on the street and at risk of offending.
	Finally, I should like to say a couple of words about the provisions relating to the role of social landlords and evictions. One of my worries is that we may be in danger of not using the powers that already exist to enable landlords to clamp down on antisocial behaviour among tenants. As I hope my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will accept, social landlords have very strong powers available to them, including injunctions, possession orders, antisocial behaviour orders, acceptable behaviour contracts and introductory and starter tenancy regimes. The Homelessness Act 2002 gives local authorities new powers to refuse to offer accommodation or to reduce the preference given to applicants for housing where antisocial behaviour is an issue. Powers are available to social landlords and we must ensure that they are using them in the most effective way and working in partnership. In my experience, we are still in the early stages of securing effective partnership arrangements.

Humfrey Malins: During the Christmas recess, I sat for a couple of days as a district judge in a very busy south London court. The afternoon list one day consisted of a series of parents who had been brought before the court by way of summons to face an allegation that they had permitted their children not to attend school. Such examples of misbehaviour or lack of control by parents frequently arise in south London, so when I looked at the Bill and considered the issue of parental contracts with a school, I thought that I would tell the House about my experience.
	Seven mothers were due in court that afternoon. Two did not turn up, after having received a court summons. Two turned up roaring drunk and incapable of understanding what was going on. Another couple turned up and, albeit sober, were utterly inadequate and incapable of comprehending even what they were doing there. The seventh turned up and used the sort of language that we in the House would never use to each other, even on a rugby pitch. Those seven cases arose in one afternoon.
	Where does that get us? It gets us to a clause saying that, although there is an existing criminal offence of not sending one's child to school, the Bill thinks that all may be cured by a parenting contract. There was not a mother in court that afternoon who would have had the slightest idea what a parenting contract would mean. One or two could not write their names. Others might have torn up the contract and thrown it in my face.

Tony Banks: What did m'learned judge do? We all want to know.

Humfrey Malins: I was powerless. Fines were a waste of time; there is no point in imposing a £50 fine on such people. Eventually representatives of the education authority said that they were doing their best with the mothers. I adjourned the cases.
	I am worried about clause 18 because contracts will not work. Such concepts are not a good idea because we have to realise that we are dealing with people who are effectively from the—I hesitate to use the word—underclass. They are desperately underprivileged and outside mainstream society.

Dari Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Humfrey Malins: It will cut my eight minutes, but that is probably no bad thing.

Dari Taylor: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments. My police force and local authority say that acceptable behaviour contracts between parents, the local authority and the police have been very effective so far. They say that the contracts are so valuable that they will avoid more drastic action later when the child is out of control. Why are the hon. Gentleman's local authority and police so different from mine?

Humfrey Malins: If everything works so well, why is the Bill necessary? If the hon. Lady steps into the London courts, she will witness some of the problems that I encountered.
	The Home Secretary's motives for introducing the Bill are good, but I wonder whether it will make a difference. In the past seven years of the Labour Government, 15 crime Bills have been introduced and the Home Secretary has produced more than 100 initiatives. They have not made a great difference: crime has increased.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said earlier, in 1971, 17 crimes were reported for every police officer. Today, there are more than 40 crimes for every police officer. When we consider our approach to crime, why do we never focus on detection rates? Many young people who commit the sort of low-level crime that falls into the antisocial behaviour category do it because they know that they will not see a policeman and that they will not get caught and dealt with.
	Let us consider previous legislation on antisocial behaviour that the Government introduced. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was not such a great success. I warned that the antisocial behaviour orders would be bureaucratic and ineffective. Instead of the 5,000 that we were promised, only a few hundred have been issued. The Home Secretary tells us that 11,000 drug treatment and testing orders have been made, and that parenting orders have been issued. However, we never know how many have been breached. Yet day after day in the courts, one comes across breaches of orders that have not been effective at all.
	Graffiti, drunkenness, criminal damage and noise form the sort of low level crime and antisocial behaviour that affects our communities. Plenty of existing law would be effective if a fully staffed police force administered it properly. Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 cover much of the sort of behaviour that the Bill describes, such as hanging around on corners and apparently posing a threat to passers-by. Further measures are unnecessary. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 already deals with graffiti; people who are responsible for graffiti and are caught are always prosecuted under that Act. What is the need for more measures?
	The common factor in most antisocial behaviour is drink. Our teenagers are the heaviest binge drinkers in Europe. Eighty-eight per cent. of criminal damage offences are committed while the offender is under the influence of drink; 15 per cent. of 12 to 17-year-olds have been involved in some form of antisocial behaviour as a direct result of drinking alcohol. Our neighbourhoods and communities have to face the need to get a grip on under-age drinking. We must focus much more on the supply of alcohol.
	In my constituency of Woking, antisocial behaviour is perceived as being closely connected to the sale of alcohol to under-age drinkers. One Saturday evening, 83 per cent. of off-licences sold cans of lager or alcopops to a 15-year-old schoolboy who volunteered to help trading standards officers. It is a curse in our communities that young people drink far too much. It leads them to antisocial behaviour and crime. We should examine that problem and put more police on the beat in our communities. That is the way forward, not a Bill that is barely worth voting for or against.

Michael Clapham: I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). They missed the point of the Bill, which can be used in the context of crime prevention partnerships. It will be effective because it will allow for short-term interventions alongside longer-term preventive measures.
	I am surprised at the condemnation by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The partnerships that were set up under the Act work successfully. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he came to Barnsley, he could see a crime prevention partnership that I chair, which has existed for almost eight years and works extremely well. The provisions in the Bill will be used to benefit the community.
	I support the Bill, but recognise some of the anxieties that hon. Members have mentioned. Nevertheless, it will be successful in the context of the crime prevention partnerships. The explanatory notes do not mention the partnerships, but anyone who is active in a community knows that the provisions will be used for that purpose.
	There is a need to strike a balance between enforcement and prevention. I shall give some examples from my constituency. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to the difficulty of being able to tackle some problems. We have set up the heads of agency group, which brings together people who can make immediate decisions locally and participate in longer-term decision making. That group includes the directors of housing, education and social services. They sit to consider specific cases, but they do not only examine each case on its merits, they make decisions in the context of longer-term action. For example, Barnsley operates a safer communities project in the village of Worsborough. It was initially funded by the Joseph Rowntree trust and helps to identify the risk factors that young people face. We hope that the study will result in an opportunity to roll out the project across the community. That will provide a longer-term approach to dealing with prevention, but it will run alongside the shorter term interventions provided by the Bill.
	Clauses 1 to 11, in part 1 of the Bill, deal with drugs. I believe that the closure orders will be effective, although I have to say to the Minister that, in my constituency, drugs tend to be a problem on the estates and can therefore also involve tenant issues that will be dealt with later in the Housing Bill. We have, however, been able to move against tenants when we have had evidence of their using their houses to distribute drugs. We have evicted such people. Only a couple of years ago, in an old mining village called Ward Green, we were able to evict tenants who were involved in distributing drugs, which was leading to antisocial behaviour.

Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Clapham: I am sorry, but I have only a few minutes.
	We were able to evict those tenants. The difficulty was, however, that they then gravitated to an area of Barnsley in which there were already problems and it became doubly difficult to deal with the matter at that stage. I know that the Minister is aware of such issues. Perhaps some of the measures in the Housing Bill will allow us to tackle that particular difficulty.
	In regard to what the hon. Member for Woking had to say earlier, I can tell him that, in Barnsley, we have established a beat team. The local authority pays for the seven officers, who work together with three enforcement officers and a legal adviser from the authority to tackle environmental issues such as graffiti and vandalism. That is working well. Their work is complemented by the tenancy enforcement wardens, and we are having some success. I believe that the measures in the Bill will be helpful to those teams.
	To return to the drugs issue, we reckon that the problem drives 70 per cent. of the crime in Barnsley. We have a big heroin problem, as do lots of other mining communities, and we need to be able to deal with it in the context of the Government's drugs policy. That will involve providing much more treatment, but, at the same time, it will be helpful to be able to deal with houses or premises from which drugs are being distributed by issuing closure notices.
	Clauses 54 and 55 deal with waste and litter. These measures will be helpful, because once a vicinity starts to look shabby because of litter, it becomes conducive to antisocial behaviour. Being able to deal with such issues directly, again through the crime prevention partnership, by enforcing the measures in the Bill will be very helpful. I want to draw to the Minister's attention to an initiative that I witnessed in west Wales. As co-Chair of the all-party group on fire prevention, I was asked to visit west Wales to see some of the initiatives—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

James Clappison: I draw to the attention of the House the entry that appears in my name in the Register of Members' Interests.
	I am the first person to welcome any initiative to tackle antisocial behaviour, which is a problem for my constituents and those of other hon. Members. I share the objectives that the Home Secretary set out—indeed, I warmed to many, if not all, of the sentiments that he expressed today. The issue for me, however, is that of how well the proposals will work in practice and how much difference they will make. I want to see proposals that will make a substantial difference to what is a very substantial problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was right to draw attention to the Bill being one of 15 different pieces of legislation on these matters, some of which make only marginal changes to existing legislation.
	My attitude towards these issues is coloured by the fact that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I served on the Committee of one of the first—if not the first—pieces of criminal justice legislation introduced by this Government, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I well remember the claims that were made on behalf of that legislation, both inside the House and outside it, before it came in. Anyone who took those claims at face value would be surprised to find the House now considering not only another piece of antisocial behaviour legislation, but one that puts right some of the problems in the Crime and Disorder Act. Furthermore, it is not the first Bill that has been needed to put right some of those problems.
	I remind Labour Members that the flagship provision of the Crime and Disorder Act was the antisocial behaviour order, which the Home Secretary mentioned only briefly when talking about the various orders available under the Act. The antisocial behaviour order was, however, the brave new idea of the Act, and anyone who had the temerity, in 1998, to question its practicability had their concerns dismissed out of hand by Ministers. Well, how much use have the antisocial behaviour orders been? My hon. Friend the Member for Woking is right to say that we can learn from experience. My constituents are still waiting to find out whether an antisocial behaviour order can be effective in changing behaviour because, in the almost three and a half years since they have been available, not a single one appears to have been taken out in my constituency. Only about nine have been taken out in the whole of Hertfordshire, and just a few hundred in the whole of the country.
	I have put this concern to Ministers in the past, and they have sometimes argued that this was proof of the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders. I remember, on one occasion, a Minister argued that the fact that the orders were not being made was evidence that potential miscreants were so frightened by them that they had stopped committing antisocial behaviour. It might be the case that there is greater legal knowledge in some quarters than we had thought, and that there are some budding legal careers in unlikely places, but the Minister's argument would tend to suggest that the problem of antisocial behaviour had got better rather than worse since 1998. My constituents could tell a different story, however.
	The antisocial behaviour orders that have been made have quite simply not been up to the scale of the problem of antisocial behaviour, and nor have many of the other provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act. When we consider the parenting orders, which have more to be said for them than antisocial behaviour orders, the Home Secretary said that only some 3,000 had been made over three years. That works out at about five for each of the more than 600 constituencies in this country over three years, and I think that we all know that the problem relating to antisocial behaviour orders is even bigger than that.

Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the Home Secretary saying in December that he was surprised when he went round the country to find that people did not know about the powers that already existed?

James Paice: Including in his own constituency.

Simon Hughes: Indeed. Is not that an argument for trying to work with measures that already exist first, rather than trying other things that have not been piloted and for which we can see no results?

James Clappison: We need to ask how workable the provisions will be, which brings me to the reservations that I have about the Bill. I have already mentioned one of them in an intervention, which is the provision regarding crack houses. I welcome the idea of closure orders, but I wonder how many will be made in practice. I note, for example, that before granting an application for a closure order, a magistrates court will have to be satisfied not only that the premises in question have been used
	"in connection with the unlawful use or supply of a Class A controlled drug"
	but that
	"the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public";
	and that
	"the making of the order is necessary to prevent the occurrence of such disorder or serious nuisance for the period specified in the order."
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) was right about this, and I am sure that the police will be concerned. How many of these orders are going to be made in practice if all this has to be proved to the satisfaction of the courts?
	An even worse example of potential legal overload in the Bill involves the power for the police to direct groups of youths to disperse. I know from my constituency caseload just how much of a problem some groups of youths can be.
	In general I support that power for the police—indeed, I thought that in practice they had it already, and if they need more powers, I am in favour of that as well—but we should note what needs to happen before an officer can use the powers in the Bill. There must have been an authorisation for their use, and such an authorisation can be given only by an officer of the rank of superintendent or above. Authorisation can be given by that senior officer only if he has reasonable grounds for believing, first, that any members of the public have been
	"intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed"
	as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in any locality in his police area, and secondly, that antisocial behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality.
	Before any authorisation, consultation must take place with any local authority whose area includes all or part of the relevant locality. Authorisation must be given publicity through an authorisation notice contained in a newspaper circulating in the relevant locality or posted in a conspicuous place in the relevant locality. The authorisation notice must comply with all the formalities set out in clause 30(4)(a) to (c), and the authorisation from the senior officer must comply with those in subsection (1)(a) to (c).
	All that sounds a bit like applying for planning permission. Only when a police officer has jumped through all those hoops is he authorised to direct a group to disperse, or "move on" as we used to say—and before he can exercise that authority he must, when he wishes to use it, have
	"reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of two or more persons in any public place in the relevant locality has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed".
	It surprises me that the police do not already have the power to move people on if their behaviour has had or is likely to have such results. At the very least, someone behaving in that way would be committing an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. In such circumstances police officers would properly enforce the law not by dispersing the youths but by arresting them, so that they could be brought before a court and charged with an offence. I wonder how much use those provisions will be in practice.
	Moreover, the power in question relates only to youths under 16. Unfortunately, groups of youths do not always divide themselves neatly into groups of under-16s and over-16s. Whatever the Home Secretary says, that is a problem for the police in practice. It brings to mind our debates during the Committee stage of the Crime and Disorder Bill on child curfew orders, which the Home Secretary had the good sense not to mention when referring to that Act because not one has been made throughout the country—not least, I suspect, because of the problem of mixed-age groups. I hope for the sake of our constituents that the new powers turn out to be more useful to the law-abiding public than those orders.
	I look forward to the introduction of measures that will make a real difference to people. I think that the provisions on antisocial tenants will need careful consideration in Committee. I was very sympathetic to the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Frank Field: I support the Bill without reservation, because I am happy to reflect the views of my constituents. I have represented the same part of Birkenhead—practically—since 1979, and during that time the nature of politics in the area has changed. In those early years, when I held surgeries or meetings or read letters, my constituents raised the issues that I expected them to raise: social security matters, the possibility of obtaining housing transfers, employment problems. Of course they still raise such issues, but the new politics that they raise are politics relating to behaviour. The Government are attempting to deal with that massive change.
	Why do we keep returning to the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)? I call him my hon. Friend because he supported a measure to which I shall return shortly. One reason for the number of measures to deal with antisocial behaviour is the fact that it forms the basis of the new politics. It is difficult to grapple with an issue for the first time, and I do not believe that the number of different antisocial behaviour measures represents failure; I rejoice in the fact that when a measure does not work, the Government are prepared to come back, to make suggestions, and sometimes even to listen to our proposals for change.
	I support the Bill because it reflects the current overriding concern of my constituents. They also want us to ask what the reasons are for the breakdown of common decencies in our society, and we should think about those in the long term. They do not, however, want us to be so academic in debating the causes of that breakdown that we do not try to enact measures aimed at preventing common decencies from collapsing still further. To what extent will the Bill help us to hold the line?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, as I call him, strongly supported a Bill I introduced earlier in this Parliament to deal with "neighbours from hell". There was widespread support from Members, apart from Liberal Democrats. I want to nail the untruth, peddled by the Liberal Democrats again today, that being tough on antisocial behaviour constitutes an attack on the poor. It is the poor themselves who are most damaged by such behaviour. Unlike me they have no bank balance. They cannot move away from the neighbours from hell, but must put up with them and see their children and their own lives destroyed.
	I hope that the Government will consult widely on measures allowing action against private landlords who give succour, comfort and help to neighbours from hell. I hope that, if that does happen, they will go into the heart of constituencies that return Liberal Democrats, and ask ordinary voters how representative those Members are of the views trotted out in this Chamber by those who want to prevent us from taking such action. I look forward to going to the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) myself, and introducing him to some of his constituents and their views on these measures.
	My hon. Friend, as I still call him, asked why we returned to all this with a sense of disappointment. It is true—we must admit it—that we had hoped to see the curfew measures used more effectively. We also wanted more antisocial orders to be used, not because we wanted to punish for the sake of it, but because we wanted to draw a line while looking in much more detail at the root causes of the breakdown of common decencies in our communities.
	That is why, before this debate, I presented the Community Prosecution Lawyers Bill to ensure that in each of our constituencies the Crown Prosecution Service must establish an office, and a senior lawyer must be elected by our voters whose primary task will be to implement the Government's antisocial behaviour legislation. The CPS's role will be to ensure that that person has adequate legal training, but our constituents will decide who gains the highly paid position. My guess is that once the position has been gained, the thought of losing it as a result of failure to deliver on the Government's programme of trying to counter antisocial behaviour will serve as a way of ensuring that many more of our measures come into effect. Therefore, I hope that, when that measure comes forward, perhaps as an amendment at the Report stage of this Bill, we will gain Liberal Democrat support as well as support from those on the Treasury Bench.
	In the moments that I have left, I reiterate the importance of the measures that the Government are trying to bring forward. I congratulate them when they are big enough to stand up and say that a measure has not worked as they want it to and that they are going to try to refine it. Antisocial behaviour is an evil that stalks the country. It destroys a common culture that the Labour movement was important in building. Why do we take the issue so seriously? We do it because we reflect our constituents' views and because antisocial behaviour is an attack on the common decency culture that the Labour movement had an important part in building in bringing about a significant change in the way people behaved to one another over the past 100 years.
	There are now real threats to our constituents' safety and well-being. Many of my constituents, who have always put more into society than they have ever taken out, will be giving a roar. There will be a roar across the whole of the constituency, except among those few neighbours from hell who gain comfort from the Liberal Democrats.

Several hon. Members: rose—

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Health (Wales) Act 2003
	Community Care (Delayed Discharges Etc.) Act 2003
	Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003.
	Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill.

3.1 pm

Peter Atkinson: It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I cannot understand why, instead of struggling with writing these Bills themselves, the Government do not ask him to write them. He would have produced a far better Bill than the Home Office has done. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's views.
	It is right that the Government should be forgiven for getting something wrong the first time and trying a second or third time, but, as my hon. Friends have said, they have tried 15 times since 1997 and three times since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, so Opposition Members' patience is rightly wearing thin. The Government have had many shots at this and it is about time they got it right. The Home Secretary and other Labour Members will forgive Conservative Members if we appear to be cynical about the Bill. One of the things about Bills that crop up for the second, third, fourth or fifth time is that they always seem to do so when an election is approaching. Is it not curious that this Bill has come up just before the local government elections?
	The Bill has been introduced with indecent haste. The fact that the ink has hardly dried on the White Paper "Respect and Responsibility" and that hardly anyone has read the White Paper when out of the woodwork has come the Bill makes us smell an election gimmick. As my hon. Friends have said, we doubt whether the measures will work. Similar measures have not worked in the past and I doubt whether they will work in future.
	One of the reasons why the provisions will not work is that the people whose job it is to implement them have no confidence or faith in them. It is interesting to look at the briefing material produced by organisations that work in the sector. Here is the Children's Society's view on giving police powers to disperse groups of two or more young children any time of the day or night—I emphasise day or night:
	"We believe that these measures represent a potential breach of children's civil liberties and rights and we are concerned about the impact that this will have on children living in their communities."
	How can the Bill be made to work if the people who have to implement it believe that gangs of youths in black hoods gathering in shopping centres intimidating elderly people should not be moved on because their civil liberties and rights may be affected? Those are the sort of people with whom we are dealing: they, and people in local authorities, will have to implement the Bill.
	I have a similar quote from Barnardo's, once a well respected organisation called Dr. Barnardo's Homes, which now takes on the completely different aura of a campaigning group. Again, it is against the
	"power for police to move on two or more young people from a locality or to return under 16's home after 9 pm".
	It says that that "is of great concern." It continues:
	"Again we are concerned about the accountability of the 'relevant officer' and the omission of any requirement to consult with local people including the children and young people themselves."
	What nonsense, coming from an organisation that is meant to be responsible and involved in the welfare of children! If those are the people who will have to implement the Bill, there is no chance of its working.

Julian Brazier: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his courage in making the points that he has just made, which highlight the wider point that, as Government money becomes a larger feature of voluntary organisations, more and more of them are turning from being providers of excellent services to being noisy campaign groups.

Peter Atkinson: I agree. That is one of the reasons why the Bill cannot be effective. If the publicity is correct, teachers in the north-east of England have made it clear that they will not dish out fixed penalty tickets to parents. They say they do not want to take on that role and it is wrong that they should.
	That is not to say that Conservative Members are not concerned about antisocial behaviour. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead that it is an evil in our society and destroys communities. It is a problem even in the constituency I represent, which is a country constituency with market towns. On council estates in my constituency, there are in most cases just two or three families who with their children and various offspring cause complete mayhem. They threaten people who complain about their behaviour and slowly instil a spiral of decay on the estate: only people who have no option but to move there do so and the whole place slowly goes down hill. We could take firm action with those people. Evict two or three families and we would very quickly bring back up the quality of the estate. In the old days, we had sin bins. When people were evicted from nice estates, they were put into a poor estate, but given a chance, if they behaved themselves, to come back. Although I have no doubt that that was extremely unpopular with Labour Members, it used to work.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, we believe that the real answer is to have a proper police force. In my constituency, we have had regular problems with gangs of youths gathering together in one particular location, curiously one of the most affluent parts of the north-east. Some of those gathering together were from some of the more affluent families in the area. It was the police who dispersed them. They went away and peace was restored to that area. Such an approach will work if one has enough police officers and if the police are given the right powers.
	For goodness' sake, one of the ways to make policing more effective is to remove the ghastly aura of political correctness with which the police daily have to deal. They have too much bureaucracy to contend with, and more attention is paid to their being politically correct than to their getting on with the job of policing.

Laura Moffatt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Atkinson: I do not have much time. Forgive me.
	A police officer told me the other day that a new recruit had arrived in the police force who had been known as Paddy all his life. That was his Christian name. He was told by senior officers that he had to be called Patrick and that calling him Paddy was an offence. That story came directly from police officers themselves. If we want to outlaw antisocial behaviour, we need a properly motivated police force. That is what Conservative Members will campaign for.
	I mention two further points. The first has already been mentioned and here I declare an interest: I refer hon. Members to the Register of Members' Interests. It is to do with the new firearms provisions in the Bill. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made the point earlier. The proposals to restrict the use of air weapons by those aged between 14 and 17 will have a serious and unnecessary effect on law-abiding young people who wish to use air rifles properly. Many people who take part in shooting sports during their lives start with air weapons. The younger they start using an air weapon and are taught proper safety and responsibility—perhaps at the age of 14—the safer and more responsible they will be later in life. I hope that in Committee the Minister will consider amendments to allow responsible use of air weapons by those under the age of 17 and above the age of 14.
	My final point concerns the issue of litter, which is dealt with in what is in effect a compendium Bill. The Bill gives local authorities additional powers to enter land and to remove litter, but the problem is that it is local authorities that are responsible for the state of our streets and roads. If one drives down the A1, say, between Newcastle and London, or along the A1 western bypass near Newcastle, one sees that the main culprits for the littering of such roads, which are the worst in Europe, are the highways authorities and the local authorities. Giving them greater powers to enter private land is an absolute waste of time, because it is they who should be doing more to keep the countryside clean.

Liz Blackman: I contacted my local police and the housing director of the registered social landlord and ran the Bill's provisions past them. By and large, their response was extremely positive, although they did flag up one or two concerns.
	Because this is such a broad Bill, I want to concentrate on just a few issues that I am particularly concerned about as an MP and a former teacher, such as the provisions on truancy and poor behaviour, and particularly those resulting in exclusion. Such behaviour constitutes one of the first opportunities that children have to flaunt conventions, the needs of their peers, the law and wider society. We know that there are well-established links between under-achievement and crime when children behave badly, truant or both. If such behaviour goes unchecked, it is difficult to prevent it from becoming entrenched and being displayed in adult life.
	There are some reasons for truanting that I can understand, such as bullying and family trauma—things that require a slightly different approach—but much truancy and bad behaviour in schools is condoned by parents, or, as the chief inspector of schools has identified, responsibility for it is ignored. In many cases, that was my experience as a teacher in dealing with truants and their parents. The underlying problem was that the parents themselves had lost control at home by failing to set the boundaries. They were condoning or ignoring such behaviour by implementing what I can only call an appeasement policy, or, at the very least, by taking the line of least resistance at home.
	However, another recurring theme was that later on, those parents would return to seek support because their children were running amok at home, ruling the roost, affecting younger siblings and sometimes using violence. The parenting contracts with which clause 18 deals have the potential to get such parents to recognise their responsibilities and, above all, to seek support.

Chris Grayling: As a former teacher, the hon. Lady has experience to bring to bear on this aspect of the debate. However, does she believe that an ability in her professional life to issue a fixed penalty notice to a parent at a parent's evening would have helped or hindered her relationship with that parent? Would it have improved the situation that she describes?

Liz Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; if he will be patient I shall deal with that precise point in a minute.
	Parenting contracts and the levering-in of support builds on the experience of parenting orders and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Youth Justice Board parenting programme ran 42 parenting projects in partnership with other local agencies. The feedback from the evaluation was extremely positive, and Members will doubtless agree that what matters is what works. The effectiveness of the support to be provided to parents who sign these contracts voluntarily will be key, and should be based on best practice learned from these parenting projects.
	Parenting orders are already granted to parents for convictions for truancy, and this measure has been extended to include exclusion. That is a positive development, but unlike contracts, such orders oblige parents to meet certain conditions, and offer support. Of course, youth offending teams can also apply for such orders because of antisocial behaviour, and it would be helpful if data-sharing protocols were evolved for police youth offending teams, local education authorities and schools.
	On fixed penalty notices—the issue mentioned by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—in principle I am very much in favour of firing a shot across the bow of a parent who is condoning truancy. I have no problem with that, but I have grave concerns about who issues those fixed penalty notices, as do many other Members. I believe and hope that putting the onus on teachers to issue such notices will be examined in greater detail in Committee. I am prepared to accept reasoned arguments in Committee that justify that initiative. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked all Members to flag up areas in which bureaucracy might interfere with implementation, and I do think that that initiative will lead to some bureaucratic nightmares.

Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Lady also agree that all the teachers' unions have registered their unhappiness with that proposal, saying that it would turn teachers into police officers, which is the last thing that they are asking to happen?

Liz Blackman: Given the implication of what I have just said to my right hon. Friend, yes, I understand that there are major concerns about this issue. I am therefore sure that it will be examined very carefully in Committee.
	My local registered social landlord is extremely positive about the provisions in the Bill dealing with housing. So am I, because like many Members, I get regular complaints about antisocial behaviour in the context of housing. Transparency is a good thing not just for tenants, but for the broader public. It is important that such policies be clearly understood, so that appropriate demands can be made of the authorities to do something about the problem. The requirement for landlords to have regard to relevant guidance issued under the Secretary of State or the relevant authority should help to establish best practice across the sector. Barnardo's, to which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) referred, believes that a requirement should be included in the policy to map out steps to be taken to resolve disputes, where they arise. That suggestion is worthy of consideration. Mapping out steps in order to resolve such problems is a good idea, given the principle of "a stitch in time", which I believe in.
	The provision relating to injunctions is very welcome. I agree that we need a measure to catch those situations in which antisocial behaviour is known about but neighbours are too frightened to make a formal complaint. I am thinking of cases involving domestic violence, and racial and other forms of harassment. My local housing authority also regards as positive injunctions to assist landlords in dealing with antisocial behaviour occurring outside the vicinity. However, it points out that clarity is again needed in the sharing of information with the police, and the police themselves have suggested that these protocols need further development. I deliberately flagged up this issue with the Home Secretary, because information sharing and the development of protocols creates some of the infrastructure necessary to improving partnership working.
	I am certainly in favour of the provision concerning demoted assured short-term tenancies. However, I am mindful that between 80 and 90 per cent. of problematic tenants have rent arrears. That is why the clause, suggested by Barnado's, that deals with intended support should be written into antisocial behaviour policy. Where appropriate, agencies should make early interventions and work with such tenants.
	I recognise that there is great concern about children being caught by the poor behaviour of parents. However, parents cannot use their children as an excuse for carrying on behaving badly. Longer-term work with parents has to be undertaken; otherwise, the cycle will simply repeat itself. There does, however, come a point when removing a family is right and fair for the surrounding neighbours.
	I have other issues that I should like to air, but I am sure that I will get an opportunity to do so later during the Bill's passage through the House. Let me finish my contribution by saying that in general I very much welcome the provisions in the Bill, which will serve Erewash extremely well.

Julian Brazier: Antisocial behaviour is the social disease of our era. It feeds fear among victims, and it destroys communities. If it is left untreated, it allows the perpetrators to slide naturally into even more serious crimes.
	At surgery after surgery in my constituency, I hear the most pitiful tales. A couple of months ago, two separate delegations—each unknown to the other—came to see me to talk about the absolutely hideous behaviour of one family. There is a child at risk involved in the case, so I cannot be too specific about it lest the child might be identified. However, such cases involve children bullying other children, and people threatening their neighbours and urinating through letter boxes. In more than one case, such incidents have built up to people firebombing their neighbours—a very serious crime that started from relatively small, but repetitive and ugly, beginnings. Other cases involve families unable to sleep at night because of the noise from next door.
	The House should be in no doubt that I strongly support any measure seriously designed to tackle the problems of antisocial behaviour. I listened to the Home Secretary when he originally announced the Bill. My heart leaped: the Bill seemed to be full of good ideas but, once I came to examine the small print, I could not believe how little substance there was.
	In the next four or five minutes, I want to look at a couple of the principles behind the Bill's aims that seem to me to be right, then at some examples that show how the Bill will not deliver anything. Finally, I shall make a suggestion of my own.
	Two underlying principles ran through the Home Secretary's speech. If they were implemented they would be absolutely sound, and they have been enunciated repeatedly, at one time or another, by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). One principle is that we have to shift from a criminal approach to a civil approach in connection with behavioural patterns of the sort that have been described. The other is that we must adopt a multi-agency approach, and not simply leave the matter to the police, although my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, is right to say that we need more policemen.
	Those two principles are sound, and they are fine. However, what is the Bill trying to achieve? One example is perhaps the most dramatic. People have pointed out already the flaw in the proposal regarding the closure of crack houses. I have several crack houses in my constituency, and they are known habitats of drug dealers. I thought that I was really going to be able to welcome the proposal to close crack houses. It struck me as an excellent way forward, using magistrates courts rather than Crown courts, the balance of probability, and the civil law. I believed that the police would be able to go and take action, and that the provision would make a big difference. However, several hon. Members have pointed out already that the problem is that the police do not merely have to establish, on the balance of probability, that illegal drugs are being handled on the premises. They also have to establish that there is a public nuisance, which completely torpedoes the measure, as I shall spell out.
	What makes dealing with such activity so difficult is that witnesses are frightened to come forward. The Bill would be a good measure if it were properly drafted and did not require witnesses. Police on their own can provide evidence of a physical nature that should be enough to support other evidence to the effect that, on the balance of probabilities, a property is being used for such purposes.
	The Bill shifts the requirement on the police. Instead of merely having to prove that a property is being used for drugs, the Bill will require them to prove as well that it is causing a public nuisance. In that way, the Home Secretary is virtually guaranteeing that it will be necessary to produce witnesses. Proving a substantial public nuisance inevitably requires victims who are willing to speak out. The additional requirement therefore ensures that the Bill is almost completely torpedoed, and I suspect that very few closures will take place.
	Several similar examples could be offered. There is not enough time to go into them all, but I want to talk about demotion of tenancies. No one supports more strongly than I the proposition that antisocial tenants must be got rid of. I have introduced two, or even three, ten-minute Bills that have looked at different elements of the problem, such as the eviction of violent husbands and partners. I strongly support such a measure, but what is the concept of demotion of tenancy trying to achieve? Surely, the same evidence will be required to achieve a demotion of tenancy as would be required to secure an eviction?
	The evidence would have to be brought before the Crown court, as is the case at the moment. A demotion of tenancy is the stage that comes before an eviction, but a real change would involve more than simply changing the name and then having the same debate. A much better way would be to let magistrates courts handle such cases, as they involve local people who are aware of local conditions. Alternatively, the eviction decision could be taken away from the courts, and provision could be made to ensure that conviction for certain categories of crime would end a secure tenancy automatically. The tenant would automatically be served with a notice to the effect that he or she was in the hands of the local authority, which would then be able to make the decision itself. The matter could be handled in a variety of ways, but it is certain that the approach adopted by the Bill will make very little difference.
	As I listened to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I was struck again by the fact that the Government have failed—yet again—to act on a measure that he proposed. I and other Opposition Members welcomed it and, had it not been for the pathetic behaviour of the Liberal Democrats, it would have been accepted by the House. However, the Government have chosen not to take this opportunity to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.
	In the final minute or so of my speech, I should like to offer one last thought to the House. It is something that would make a real difference. Why do we not cut down on the paperwork involved in arrests? That is what discourages the police from dealing with the smaller offences that can do so much harm in society. The best way to do that would be to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so as to give back to police the traditional habeas corpus power that they had until 19 years ago. The American police still have it, and holding people overnight is often the best way to deal with antisocial behaviour.
	3.28 pm

Shona McIsaac: I want the House to picture the following scene: a person walks out of her front door and sees, tossed over the garden wall, half-eaten kebabs, and chip wrappers and bottles and cans. There is some graffiti on the wall and on the gate, and there is litter on the pavement where she has to swerve past the messages left by the neighbourhood dogs. When she walks across the street, she hears loud music blaring, and there are more bottles underfoot. That is what I had to put up with on a Saturday morning a few weeks back as I walked from my house five minutes down the street to do my advice surgery. It was unusual in that I do not always get graffiti on a Friday night. However, it happens not only to me, but to many of my constituents. I am sure that many hon. Members would echo that.
	At the time, I was consulting my constituents about their attitudes to crime and antisocial behaviour, and trying to get to the root of their fear of crime. I do not know why the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) cannot go out and consult his local residents rather than just whinge in this House. I had plenty of time after the Queen's Speech to go out and find out exactly what my constituents thought about the matter. When I did so, they made the same comments regardless of whether they lived in the densely packed terraced streets of north Cleethorpes, the port of Immingham, the market town of Barton or the village of Waltham. Here are some of their comments: "gangs of youths"; "young ruffians, sometimes in groups at the shopping centre late at night—there ought to be curfews for young children and they should carry ID cards"; "drunken youths"; "gangs of antisocial youths"; "loutish behaviour"; "parents have to be shown that they cannot put the blame for their children on others—bad parenting needs to be addressed"; "why are youngsters allowed to have airguns anyway?"; "the misuse of fireworks is a year-round occurrence"; "it takes too long to take away dumped and burned-out cars". That is just a selection of the many comments that I received from my constituents about the antisocial behaviour that they felt was plaguing their lives.
	One of my local authorities, North Lincolnshire council, also consulted people about the matter, and it revealed that 39 per cent. of people thought that teenagers hanging around on the streets was a fairly big or a very big problem in their neighbourhood. We cannot overestimate the seriousness of what we are dealing with.

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Shona McIsaac: Should I give way to a Liberal Democrat? I am much nicer than the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, so I shall.

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Lady clarify whether what was disturbed in the examples that she gave was the behaviour of the young people or people's perception of the young people?

Shona McIsaac: If the hon. Lady will pay attention I shall go on to say what was concerning my constituents.
	In my survey, 80 per cent. of respondents stated that although they were aware that crime figures had gone down, their fear of crime had gone up. That is a result of antisocial behaviour. The intimidatory factor that creates their fear is the destruction of the environment that results from graffiti, rubbish or young people hanging around on street corners. They do not lack faith in the police and what we are doing to try to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady mentioned crime figures. Does she accept that if, for example, a gang of troublemakers vandalises eight front gates in a street on a Friday night, eight different people feel that they are a victim of crime, but it almost certainly does not show up as eight different crimes in the crime figures?

Shona McIsaac: That depends on where the crime figures are being recorded. In some areas they are based on the number of incidents and in others they are based on the number of perpetrators. In my area, it is the latter. That gives more accurate figures than those produced in an area where the police take the view that if 25 cars are smashed up in one night by a lout, it is only one crime because only one lout has done it. It is not—it is 25 different crimes.
	I took up my findings from my constituents with David Westwood, the chief constable of Humberside. In his reply, he wrote:
	"In north-east Lincolnshire, levels of crime have fallen and there has been a constant increase in the numbers crimes solved each month."
	However, he continued:
	"Another problem arising from questionnaires such as yours is what the public considers to be a crime is not necessarily a crime in law. For example, a group of youths congregating on a street may make people feel intimidated and uneasy and therefore their behaviour is construed to be criminal, when in fact they are not committing an offence in law."
	That gets to the heart of the debate. People perceive that such acts are wrong and think that we should be doing something about it. They do not want us to wait any longer—they have been putting up with it for years and want us to act now.
	When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced his proposals for the Bill, I went back to the people I had consulted and said, "These are some of the things that we are proposing to do." Those people were virtually 100 per cent. supportive of what the Government are trying to do. Time is short, but I will read a couple of responses that I received. Some of those responses were interesting because the opinions that they express differ from some of the opinions that we have heard today. For example, one Cleethorpes resident said:
	"I don't think there is any need for begging at all and a penalty would help."
	However, she continued:
	"You can't stop gangs of youths gathering in groups as they are not all troublemakers. I find if you are nice to them, they are nice to you."
	However, somebody from the same street wrote to say that he hates seeing gangs of youths on the street corner and that, every time he tells them to get a haircut or a decent job, they have a go at him. That made me feel rather sorry for that gang of youths.
	An Immingham resident wrote to say:
	"Thank you for your letter. I am delighted to read its content and about the proposed crackdown on antisocial behaviour. This should have a great impact on the lives of decent hard-working people."
	As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, this is not just about enforcement, it is about attitude. The responsibility is not simply that of the Government, the police or the local authorities—although everybody says that the local authorities ought to be cleaning up after people. People have to take responsibility themselves. There should be zero tolerance of antisocial behaviour and I have no trouble saying that. There should be zero tolerance of fly tipping, graffiti, noise nuisance, nuisance neighbours, firework misuse, airguns or whatever. That will require a change of attitude in society—and clearly a change of attitude on the part of the Liberal Democrats, who do not know where they are on this issue. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is good at saying things from a sedentary position. He would not take my intervention so he is too scared to intervene on me.
	One Waltham resident said:
	"We must work together as decent honest citizens to make our streets a safer place to be."
	Everybody will have to work together. This Bill goes some way towards ensuring that that will happen and I will give it my wholehearted support.

Annette Brooke: This Saturday afternoon, I was approached by an elderly gentleman who told me how his life was being made a misery by antisocial behaviour. He said that he was disturbed late at night, every Friday, by very unpleasant behaviour from young people, possibly on their way home from a local youth club. I am sure that people such as that constituent, on hearing of the existence of this Bill, will have very high expectations of it. The behaviour described by my constituent needs tackling—as, indeed, do any activities that result in criminal damage to property by people who are perhaps not so young. However, I do not think that this Bill provides any appropriate solutions for such incidents. In my constituency, we need more bobbies on the beat, and I hope that the Minister might consider funding some neighbourhood wardens. We have none at all in Poole. A more visible, uniformed presence would be the greatest deterrent that we could have.
	In many instances, it is appropriate to use a problem-solving approach at a local level and on a multi-agency basis. If young people are seen as part of the problem, they should be involved in finding solutions. The crime and disorder partnerships make such an approach possible. Some excellent work is being done, but there simply are not enough resources across a range of services to fund and implement enough suitable strategies. We should be funding the existing excellent initiatives.
	My simple example highlighted just one type of antisocial behaviour; but we all know that, in reality, the term is used to cover a wide variety of activities and issues, from minor nuisance to behaviour that can almost destroy people's lives. My example also highlighted the common perception that antisocial behaviour is entirely down to young people. We have to be very careful about that perception. As was made clear by an hon. Member earlier, we must remember that young people are also the victims of crime.
	I support many aspects of the Bill, including its main aims, and it contains some helpful proposals, but it is also unhelpful in places, especially part 4, which almost demonises young people. Clause 29 allows for groups of two or more children to be dispersed if, by their mere presence, they are thought to be causing distress to others. I am concerned that children and young people will be judged not on their behaviour, but on the reaction of others to their behaviour. That is a dangerous path.
	For many years I have been directly involved with groups of young people and sometimes extra policing has been necessary, but the problems have been solved by using existing powers. We need a well resourced multi-agency approach, which includes ensuring that young children are provided with the facilities that they want—shelters, skate parks, safe play areas or whatever—and that can only be sorted out at locally. The emphasis in part 4 risks alienating young people still further without involving them in the solutions.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: That is a great aspiration. Unfortunately, it is not happening under Somerset county council, which is cutting funding and—guess what?—it is Liberal Democrat controlled. Does the hon. Lady realise that what she advocates is fine in Mid-Dorset and North Poole, but it is certainly not what her party is doing in Somerset—or Devon for that matter?

Annette Brooke: That enables me to highlight the fact that councils across the south-west have had an appalling funding settlement from the Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been part of a delegation to a Minister fighting on behalf of his residents. We are aware that because of the funding situation in the south-west, there are cuts in much needed services. My argument is that we need resources for good initiatives.
	Let me illustrate how a strong-armed approach can be counterproductive. Wooden benches in my constituency were grouped together in an open space. Young people congregated there and were perceived to be a nuisance. It is not clear that there was any real problem and no damage was caused. However, the local authority was persuaded to move the benches. They were then spaced out and put in a long line along a path. Since then, every bench has been vandalised. It is clear that we need the right solution for a specific problem.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annette Brooke: No, I want to continue.
	It must surely be an aim to ensure that children and young people do not get into the criminal justice system, yet across the country we have a serious problem, especially in Somerset, with the underfunding of social services. Eligibility criteria have continually been tightened across social services provision for children, which prevents children from being identified and assisted at an earlier stage. If that were done, it would save police time, cost less and provide the child with a better chance of avoiding an antisocial behaviour order.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, I recently visited Sweden and was fascinated to note the lead role that social services play in dealing with behaviour that would have been judged criminal in this country. I was also picked up on using the word "preventive". It was suggested that I should use "encouragement" instead.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annette Brooke: No, I want to make progress.
	The idea of intensive fostering could be useful, especially if it reduces the number of young people in custody, but ideally work needs to be done with the child and the family together. There is also the issue of where additional well-trained foster carers will come from. Part 3 proposes to extend the use of parent contracts and parent orders. I am well aware that parent orders have been successful, but in the context of truancy and exclusions it would be desirable to proceed by voluntary agreement wherever possible. Although there will be some instances when such orders will be the right tool, there are sometimes complex reasons behind truancy and a child's behaviour at school and that problem will need to be treated differently. Those orders are not a panacea. They are one measure that will be appropriate in some circumstances. Although parents can be made to attend parenting classes, they cannot be made to participate. It is incredibly undesirable for head teachers and teachers to impose fines for truancy: a separation is needed between enforcers and those who are trying to work with children and their families.
	The main problem with the Bill is that it is a hotch-potch: it contains a whole range of measures, and it is full of enforcement measures. It is the end of the line, yet the Government have so many good initiatives, such as sure start and the many youth initiatives. Why do they not concentrate on evaluating existing schemes and rolling out successful programmes more widely?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annette Brooke: I have only one minute left.
	My hon. Friends and I will not be voting against the Bill tonight. We support large sections of it, and we would like the opportunity to improve other sections. What we are really concerned about, however, is that no real consultation has taken place. I am waiting for an answer from the Home Secretary as to whether young people were consulted on the Bill, which would have been a good starting point. We will therefore vote against the programme motion tonight, as the Bill deserves detailed scrutiny and real consultation so that we can get a piece of worthwhile legislation.

Ann Coffey: The range of measures that the Government have introduced are making a real difference in terms of preventing and tackling antisocial behaviour.
	When I was first elected in 1992, in response to complaints from residents about youths causing nuisance, I used to hold meetings with angry residents, to which I invited the police. The police would point out how limited their powers were, that they did not have enough officers to deal with the problem, and that, anyway, it was not a priority for policing. Residents complained, however, that their lives were being made a misery, it was a priority as far as they were concerned, and if the police were unwilling to act, that would only confirm to the young people involved that they were beyond the law. In practice, the meeting would result in the police paying particular attention to the area concerned, but, inevitably, when the police went away, the problem came back. Alternatively, I would find myself calling a similar meeting in another area in my constituency to which the youths causing nuisance had moved.
	Now, when I have complaints from residents and hold meetings, I have not only the police present but also a representative from the youth offending team. That partnership approach enables young people causing nuisance to be identified and dealt with by the appropriate agency. I welcome the provision in the Bill for dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence, which will help with the more persistent and serious problems of groups of young people involved in antisocial behaviour. That would have helped, for example, with a particular situation that occurred recently on one of the council estates in my constituency, in which a group of young people systematically intimidated and harassed residents. If that power had been available to the police, that group of young people could have been disbanded more quickly while the individuals were dealt with. In the event, it was the residents who fled the estate.
	The introduction of crime and disorder partnerships has made a real difference to the way that disorderly and antisocial behaviour can be dealt with. It means that agencies must work together to meet targets for community safety, and recognises that that is not solely the responsibility of the police. The introduction of antisocial behaviour orders has been very effective in Stockport in dealing with those young people who have histories of offending, burglary, taking and driving, combined with behaviour designed to terrify and intimidate anybody who might give witness to their behaviour. I would, however, like more attention to be given to making exclusion orders from shopping centres part of the conditions of an ASBO when the offender has a history of shoplifting and intimidation of shop staff. Shoplifting is not a victimless crime, as countless shop workers will testify. The increasing level of intimidation, abuse and assault on shop workers is alarming and should not be tolerated.
	I would like, however, to bring a problem to the Minister's attention and to that of the Lord Chancellor: the length of time that it takes to apply for and be granted an ASBO. In Stockport, an application is always based on previous offending history, relying on previous convictions. Those offences have already been proven to a higher standard than required by an ASBO, so it seems perverse that they can be the subject of a legal aid application to defend them a second time. What happens, of course, is that the case is strung out for months while defence solicitors extract large amounts of public funds, particularly in the case of appeals for which no grounds have to be given.
	For an ASBO to be granted, the applicant has to show two things: first, that the defendant behaved in any antisocial manner and, secondly, that an order is necessary to protect the public. If an application relies on previous convictions and the court accepts that such behaviour is antisocial as well as criminal, legally aided argument should be reduced to whether an order is necessary to protect the public. I wonder whether the Minister will look at that point.
	The measure of a crime and disorder partnership's success is not just the number of ASBOs applied for and granted, but the systematic application of the range of measures at its disposal to improve community safety. Critical is how well the agencies work together locally, and I wonder whether the Minister has any plan to publish the outcomes for crime and disorder partnerships, so that we can see the progress being made.
	In Stockport, acceptable behaviour contracts are an effective mechanism for defining to young people the behaviour that needs improvement, while enabling the involvement of the necessary agencies. So a young person may be forbidden to leave his home after 8 o'clock at night, but he will also receive help for alcohol abuse problems and his parents will be asked to attend parenting classes.
	The parenting contracts introduced by the Bill will be equally effective. Like ABCs, they will not be legal contracts, but, when I inquired last year, I was informed that only 3 out of 28 such contracts had been broken. Of course, those who break the contract know that the next step will be an ASBO. Similarly, the next step for those who break a parenting contract will be a parenting order, so those contracts will be viewed as having authority.
	However, some of those young people's backgrounds include chaotic families, often known to a number of agencies, with histories of drug and alcohol problems, and their parents have poor parenting skills because they themselves were badly parented. When those children started primary school, they were unable to learn because of underdeveloped language and social skills, and they almost immediately began to fail. School can only do so much. The earlier we start to break that terrible cycle, the better.
	Although ASBOs are very welcome in dealing with serious antisocial and persistent criminal behaviour, the problem is very deep-seated in young people by the time that they become subject to them, and changing that behaviour is all the more difficult to achieve. That is why the investment in the early years is very welcome. Using money from the standards fund, language development teams are going into nursery classes and making a real difference to language development. Sure start schemes are helping to improve parenting in the crucial early years, enabling children to take advantage of the education that they are offered and helping them to succeed in the education system. It is right that that kind of support is backed up with pressure on parents, particularly to send their children to school—a child who is not there cannot be educated.
	When children are born into such chaotic families, agencies should intervene effectively to support that those children, as they are clearly at risk of developing into antisocial adults. Such investment would have a worthwhile return if it were to keep those children from failing at school, turning to criminality and costing the state thousands in secure accommodation, youth custody and years in and out of jail, not to mention the cost to victims and the wider community.
	Prevention versus enforcement is an old argument. Of course, there must be both, but that combination is more likely if the resources of councils and other agencies are used, rather than simply asking social services departments to take responsibility for such families. Resources involve not simply cash, but innovative ways of looking at delivering services. One of the values of the sure start initiative is that it changes the way that existing services are delivered.
	Part of the Bill is about dealing with graffiti, litter and dog fouling. Recently the children of Tame valley, as part of their citizenship curriculum, wrote to me about such problems near their school. When I visited them, they showed me, among other things, the bus stop that had been vandalised, the litter and the dog fouling. The council has responded very positively to their concerns. I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate the children of Tame valley and their teachers on their successful efforts to improve their environment. I am sure that those children will welcome the increased powers in the Bill to deal with those problems. Through the citizenship curriculum, schools are teaching children to care for their community and to understand how to achieve what they want appropriately. That makes an important contribution to the wider agenda of preventing antisocial behaviour by encouraging children to be good citizens from an early age.
	In conclusion, I very much welcome the Bill as a positive step towards enabling agencies to take effective action in combating antisocial behaviour.

David Atkinson: I welcome much of what the Bill proposes, as will my constituents.
	Bournemouth, as an urban conurbation that includes Poole, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), includes residential areas that experience many of the problems that the Bill is designed to tackle. Those areas include housing estates where it takes only a few unruly ringleaders of gangs of young people to make the lives of everyone else a misery. They cock a snook at the entire neighbourhood, as the Home Secretary rightly pointed out in his opening speech.
	Such behaviour can be discouraged by regular police patrols. The appointment of a community beat officer represents a valuable contribution in any such neighbourhood. However, the police cannot be everywhere. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established community safety executives, under local authorities, which allowed elected members to highlight local experiences of antisocial behaviour and to respond by agreeing a strategy with the police and the local authority.
	Under local government reorganisation, that procedure was replaced by local partnerships that have no direct accountability to the council. I look forward to assurances from the Minister who winds up the debate that the effectiveness of the Bill's new provisions to deliver safer communities will not be undermined by the new and remote partnerships that have replaced the local community safety executives.
	I welcome the measures to tackle the misuse of air weapons. They include some of the proposals in the 10-minute rule Bill that I introduced last year—the Firearms (Replica Weapons) Bill—which would have banned the acquisition and use of airsoft weapons by anyone under the age of 17 unless supervised by an adult. I was extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), for meeting me to discuss my Bill.
	I introduced the Bill after the traumatic experience of two of my young constituents—sisters—who were targeted in a public place by a ball bearing gun. Such incidents involving BB guns occur regularly throughout the country, but that will no longer be the case if the Bill is effective. We must all welcome that.
	My local Dorset police—like all forces—will welcome measures to tackle the availability of replica weapons. All too frequently, we read reports about the police reacting to the brandishing of guns in public, only to find that they are replicas. Apart from that being a costly waste of police resources, it can lead to tragic consequences. However, the Bill does not appear to respond to police requests for tougher controls on the sale of toy guns.
	Last week, the Bournemouth Daily Echo reported that the cab window of a passenger train passing through Poole town centre had been fired at by a paintball gun, which could have obliterated the view of the driver. One can imagine the consequences for a car driver if his windscreen was sprayed with paint in that way. Like the use of airsoft guns, the use of paint guns without supervision should also be banned.
	Finally, I am disappointed that the Bill does not strengthen police powers to deal with the antisocial behaviour of large groups of travellers who occupy public parks and open spaces with unauthorised encampments. When I introduced my Traveller Law Reform Bill on 10 July last year, I described the horrific experience in Bournemouth in Christmas 2001 and in the new year of 2002, when 300 caravans and vehicles and 800 people occupied Kings park in my constituency. My Bill would define the rights and responsibilities of travellers.
	As the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill does not refer to the antisocial problems posed by travellers, I look forward to proposing my own constructive solutions when I reintroduce my private Member's Bill on Wednesday 7 May. I look forward to the support of the Government for that measure.

Alan Howarth: For me, too, it would be an unusual constituency surgery if no one came to me with a story about the distress that their household was experiencing due to antisocial behaviour. It is to the Government's credit that they have fully recognised the problem and have already responded in a range of ways, notably in the 1998 legislation that set up crime and disorder reduction partnerships. That was enthusiastically welcomed by the police and the local authority in Newport, who have themselves addressed the challenges to increasingly good effect.
	The new White Paper and the Bill will add valuably to the panoply of interventions available to public authorities. In Newport, we especially welcome the powers to disperse intimidating groups in designated areas and to close down premises used for drug dealing; the powers on air guns, replicas and graffiti; and the scope to accredit neighbourhood wardens. Newport's estate rangers, now renamed the community safety warden service, have won the respect and confidence of local people.
	Of course, there will be differences of view. I have found different reactions to fixed penalty notices for 16 and 17-year-olds and to the provision for faster eviction as between the police in Newport and the youth offending team. There are greater doubts still about the appropriateness of the proposals concerning housing benefit. However, the important point is that the added powers will be provided for use at the discretion of local agencies and partnerships. It is positively valuable that the merits and demerits of using them should be debated thoughtfully at local level. I shall make three points.
	My first point is that prevention is better than cure. Indeed, that is the title of an excellent document on policy for young people produced by the Welsh Assembly Government.
	Risk factors for children and young people are more likely to occur in low-income households where unemployment is endemic, where there are housing problems and where there is a culture of substance misuse. So, to resurrect a phrase, we must be tough on the causes of antisocial behaviour. The Government's commitment against poverty and in support of good public services is central to that strategy.
	In 1997 and 1998, in the Department for Education and Employment, I had the privilege of working with my right hon. Friend who is now the Home Secretary on the new deal, the national child care strategy and sure start, all of which were early and essential building blocks in the strategy.
	My observation of children and young people is that they need two things: love and success. Where they have both, they will thrive. Where one is missing, they may get by. Where there is neither, they will almost certainly be in real difficulty. Love is not for the state to provide, but it can help. The Government are right to focus on parenting through Parenting Plus and support for home start, which does a wonderful job in Newport, as well as to introduce the new powers on parenting contracts and parenting orders. That so many parents who have been subject to parenting orders express enthusiasm and recommend them to others shows us, if we are in doubt, that inadequate parents do not want to be inadequate. Intensive fostering and intensive support schemes will enable children to receive care and attention that may make all the difference to them emotionally.
	Without compromising standards, schools can find opportunities for all their pupils to achieve success in some area and the respect of their peers.

Andrew Selous: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that where the love and support of parents is not available to children, the constant attention of a mentor throughout a child's development can be a crucial factor in developing that life in a positive direction?

Alan Howarth: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to find mentors and mentoring is a difficult role to play, but I do not doubt that he is right that where they can be brought into play, they will play a valuable part.
	We are doing much more to provide sufficient sporting facilities, but we must do still more to ensure that there are enough recreational facilities that are affordable and available for people in deprived communities. Those who are working on the ground in the more disadvantaged wards of Newport, East tell me that, while more funding is available for intervening when things have already gone wrong, not enough funding is available for preventive work. It is a struggle even to obtain a few thousand pounds to refurbish a youth club or to fund young people to make a video. Early intervention and preventive investment should have consistently higher priority.
	That takes me to my next main point, which is about prioritisation and integration of effort. Antisocial behaviour covers a multitude of sins, from unkempt gardens to systematic persecution. Holistic approaches are needed, but vaporous terms such as "holistic" and "partnership" do not get us very far.
	The partner agencies have other pressing duties. The police must deal with serious crime. The health service must deal with cancer and heart disease. On what basis are they and other partners to commit resources to antisocial behaviour? How then are they to prioritise between different varieties of antisocial behaviour?
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in the White Paper and the Bill, is giving a clear lead. Government, whether in Whitehall or Cardiff, needs consistently across all Departments to follow that lead. The police now know, with the national policing strategy that was published in November, that antisocial behaviour is to be a higher priority than in the past. I trust that the resources and the performance indicators emanating from across government will reflect that. However, if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. The Government need to make it clear where in the plethora of priorities antisocial behaviour ranks.
	We need consistent approaches between levels of government, between Departments, between different areas and over time. To ensure delivery, we need more than just identification of where lead responsibility lies among Departments and individuals, important though that has been. We need to overcome the problem of agencies and Departments operating as separate fiefdoms. All must be equally committed, because if we fail to deal with one part of a complex pathology, we will undermine the rest of what we do. Hitherto, in Newport, we have not, for example, had the commitment that we needed from the health service to our crime and disorder reduction partnership. Too little effort and resource have gone into the child and adolescent mental health service. Public service agreements, business plans, targets and performance indicators must all reiterate the same story. We need to pool budgets for antisocial behaviour to a greater extent. Multi-agency training must be developed further. Partnership must become integration.
	We also need to improve our base of evidence. We need systematic recording of antisocial behaviour, the number and severity of instances, the profile of perpetrators, and the damage that is done, as well as progress on objectives. Cost-benefit analysis in this complex inter-agency arena is not easy, as the Newport community safety partnership has noted in a thoughtful and candid strategy document. We must disseminate what has been found to work to good effect—perhaps that will be a role for the Government's new antisocial behaviour unit.
	My final point is about community confidence and resilience. Antisocial behaviour damages vulnerable communities the most, and hurts the most vulnerable people in them the worst. There are things, however, that can be done quickly to help to build confidence.
	Neighbourhood agreements, as recommended in the social exclusion unit report of 2000, can establish ground rules whereby communities agree standards of acceptable behaviour and service providers set out the service that the community can expect. If people who have been frightened, confused and disillusioned know what they have a right to expect and what behaviour is within the pale and what is beyond, they will be better able to regroup and stand up for themselves.

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned something that is surely as important as any other factor. Would not it be a good idea if those who transgressed were simply punished, so that then they might not do it again?

Alan Howarth: Of course—I shall come to that. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman.
	There has been one consistent call from the public over the past 20 years which, until now, has been consistently rejected by the police—it has been for the return of the bobby on the beat. Experienced police officers in Newport regard it as highly desirable. The local policeman, known by all and knowing them, was a symbol of authority and the community's insistence on law and order, and was a very effective deterrent for young people minded to misbehave. I am pleased that in areas of Newport the local policeman, now called the crime and disorder reduction officer, is once again a familiar figure, and a greatly appreciated one. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is increasing police numbers and introducing community support officers, but if he can provide further resources to fund regular uniformed foot patrols in the areas worst affected by antisocial behaviour, it would do much to create a sense of security and improve community morale.
	When antisocial behaviour orders were introduced, they seemed to be just what was needed to deal directly and firmly with the troublemakers. They were so beset, however, with procedural restrictions and complications that they proved disappointing. Improvements were made in the 2002 legislation, and the Government's new proposals will improve ASBOs further. Newport welcomes the provision that local authorities will be able to prosecute for breaches of ASBOs, although the problem with prosecutions is to provide evidence that will hold good in court. We have had very few ASBOs in Newport. In one case, it is clear that the young person has routinely breached the ASBO and threatens in the most terrifying way people who might give evidence against him. They are certain that he would deliver on his promise. His only certainty seems to be that he will continue to get away with it. As the Government say in the White Paper, "effective enforcement is key". I therefore welcome their proposals to improve the protection of witnesses and the training of magistrates and judges, and to establish community justice centres where justice should be accessible and speedy.
	We can further build community confidence if the rotten apples are taken out of the barrel quickly and decisively. When warnings and other less draconian interventions have failed, action is justified to remove individuals or families who are poisoning their neighbourhoods. Eviction must clearly be a last resort, but the Government are right to provide more powers for use when necessary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had his eight minutes.

John Bercow: As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have observed, the Bill includes worthwhile measures to address the phenomena of drugs, firearms, litter, noise and graffiti. I salute Ministers for advancing those policies, but there are weaknesses in the Bill, and it is my responsibility in this debate to highlight some of them.
	Reference has been made on both sides of the House to the provisions for the reduction of security of tenure. It is possible, as the Government intend, to demote tenancies in certain instances. However, we must be careful to reflect not only on the motive behind the policy, but on its probable consequences. I readily concede that some people who are thoroughly antisocial and pestilential nuisances can cause their neighbours and local authorities to reach the end of their tether. In some circumstances, there may be no alternative but to evict a tenant—though the Bill does not readily provide for such an outcome—from a home owned by a local authority or where the person is a tenant of a housing action trust or a registered social landlord.
	It behoves us to reflect, however, on the policy implications elsewhere of enforcing such a decision, which might prove necessary. What are we to do in respect of the provision of bed-and breakfast-accommodation? Have we factored in its likely cost? How many people will be affected by it? If it is judged that the circumstances justify breaking up the family, are we prepared to contemplate the reality of the consequences of that for which we are legislating—that some children will be forced into the alternative hell of serial fostering arrangements or of institutionalised care?
	I am not saying categorically that it would be rash to do so and that no such outcome could ever be justified. It might be the lesser of two evils or the least worst outcome. However, simply to congratulate ourselves and give the impression of complacency to the outside world would be foolhardy in the extreme. If we legislate as the Government propose—without amendment, adequate back-up or safeguards—other policy implications will arise. If we act as clauses 14 and 15 provide, we will not necessarily deal with the problem, but simply move it on to another destination.
	If the Under-Secretary were willing to acknowledge the point—I am not making it in a partisan sense, but in a constructive spirit—I would appreciate it. It would also be helpful if he could tell us more about the other aspects of Government policy between Departments that would require additional funding, integration and co-ordination. That would contribute towards the practical outcome of joined-up government, to which we all sign up in principle.
	I have a second concern, shared by hon. Members in all parts of the House, which is about the provision in clause 22 for the imposition of fixed penalty notices on parents whose children have played truant. It is easy to provide for that, to wield the big stick, to seem tough and to indulge in a self-gratifying display of machismo by saying, "We are dealing with the matter", but are we really doing so? I salute the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) who, on the strength of her professional experience, expressed real concerns about empowering a head teacher or teacher to impose that penalty. I entirely agree with her.
	Let us reflect on what that could mean for relations between the teacher and the parent; between the teacher and the pupil; and—last but by no means least—between the parent and the pupil. There is an argument for applying fixed penalties, which I readily concede. It avoids a more time-consuming and long-winded method of addressing the problem. However, I implore the Under-Secretary to reflect in sober and constructive fashion in Committee on whether there is a more effective way of dealing with the problem. I sometimes think that if a clause is very long, as clause 22 is—it consumes or absorbs three pages of the Bill—there is probably something wrong with it. I say to hon. Members that proposed new section 444B to the Education Act 1996 contains no fewer than 10 subsections, the first of which, appertaining to the provision for regulation or secondary legislation, itself contains no fewer than 11 paragraphs. There is something wrong here; the provision is vague, ill-defined and imprecise. The meat needs to be put on to the bone. That is not an application to be included in the Standing Committee, although I shall obviously have to put up with the judgments that my hon. Friends in the Whips Office make on these important matters.
	My third concern is the consideration of fixed penalties in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds. I am anxious about that as well. Of course, people who are undermining the quality of life of others have to be confronted, punished and shown a better way forward. However, if some of those people have next to nothing by way of financial resources, is it an intelligent policy option for this House to say "We shall fine you"? Even Ministers seem to recognise the potential lacuna in their provisions, as clause 38, which deals with this matter, refers to the capacity of the Secretary of State to specify different amounts for persons of different ages. That conjures up extraordinary ideas of a 13-year-old being subjected to one penalty while a 16-year-old is subjected to another and a 17-year-old to yet another. That seems extraordinary. I am not sure that there is a rationale behind that approach or whether it has been thought through.
	The problem is that there is too much focus in the Bill on inputs and not enough attention directed to outputs. I do not want breast-beating from the Home Secretary and I do not want him to legislate simply to feel better or to appeal to the Daily Mail or other tabloid newspapers. I want him to legislate to improve the quality of life for people in my constituency and among the citizenry of this country. The Bill needs to be scrutinised rigorously, thoroughly and remorselessly, and that is what my hon. Friends will do.

Laura Moffatt: I am very interested to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), particularly in the light of his comments about fixed penalty fines. I should like to develop an argument firmly in favour of fixed penalties and I hope that that will complement his contribution.
	It is obvious from the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate that we completely understand the corrosive and severely damaging psychological impacts of antisocial behaviour in our communities. Good people need to know that Members of this House are on their side. That is what I firmly believe the Bill is about—supporting people who for too long have had to put up with the sort of behaviour that we all know we are discussing.
	All of us have been visited by people with such concerns. I live in a community in which we suffer from many of the problems that have been raised on the Floor of the House. It is interesting to note that some members of our community think that it is all right to throw out an old mattress into the street and that it is okay to have a party all night so that the children cannot get up for school in the morning. Such people cannot quite understand why others find their behaviour offensive. It is about time that we made a difference through partnership work with our local authorities and police.
	Last week, I held an advice surgery in Crawley. I was pleased that when a family and other neighbours came to complain about severe disruption caused by another neighbour, the police came too. They held the surgery with me and were bigger advocates of Home Office policies under this Government than anybody I have ever met. The police shared with residents the fact that new powers are in place, and extra powers are coming. I felt extremely heartened about that.
	No doubt we will all choose to deal with particular aspects of the Bill, as we do not have time to mention everything on which we would like to comment. I pledge my support to most aspects of the Bill, which is a positive contribution to making our communities safer and, frankly, nicer to live in. The issue I want to consider in particular is fly tipping, which affects many people not only in towns but in the countryside. I recently attended an excellent seminar organised by Environmental Campaigns Ltd—ENCAMS—formerly the Tidy Britain Group. Those attending included representatives of local authorities, rail authorities and others who attempt to deal with the hideous problem of fly tipping. Not only do people who perpetrate fly tipping use large vehicles and believe that it is acceptable to dump tonnes of rubble outside somebody's gate or in a small area where children should play, but they take money for doing it. That goes beyond antisocial behaviour. It shows complete disrespect for our communities. The Bill should provide for extremely tough action to be taken against those who believe that they can charge money for that. Their vehicles should be confiscated so that they can no longer do their job and then take extra money for fly tipping. I hope that we can strengthen the provision on that.
	I support the imposition of a statutory duty on authorities to work together. Fly tipping happens in all our constituencies and counties. We need co-operation to ensure that local authorities understand the way in which they work and how to reach out to each other to prevent it. The Bill gives them the ability to do that but I should like it to provide for a statutory duty on them to consult each other on creating partnerships in counties.
	I chaired my local authority's environment committee for nine years, and I am pleased that my son recently qualified as an environmental health officer. He now lives and works in London and would argue that noise is one of the most difficult problems for neighbours, especially noise that happens through the night. It is often caused by people who do not work during the day and do not have the discipline to think, "It's midnight, perhaps I'd better go to bed." They play music and disrupt their neighbours' lives. I should like environmental health officers to be properly supported, and I want to consider fixed penalty notices in that context. Some people simply do not think about others, and it would be right to apply a fixed penalty notice to them. I also believe that the equipment should be taken away in cases of constant abuse. I am glad that my local authority has used that power effectively.
	My authority and Sussex police were desperate to be chosen to pilot fixed penalty notices and were disappointed when they were not. They support their introduction because they have conducted a programme in Crawley called Operation Marble, which has reduced town centre disorder and crime by more than 35 per cent. through in-your-face policing. The police have a presence in the town centre and a video camera. They tell people, "If you don't go home now, you'll end up in court with us." Taking money from disruptive people and spoiling their night is perfect because it does not mean a criminal record. Young people who behave badly often regret it bitterly later. I hope that we can make the maximum use of fixed term penalties to ensure that we tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities properly.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Laura Moffatt: I shall not give way because many more people want to speak.
	I fully support the aspects of the Bill that will improve life in our communities, and I sincerely hope that we can say in the near future that the Government have truly tackled antisocial behaviour.

Andrew Selous: Like all the hon. Members who have spoken so far today, I very much welcome the focus of the Government's attention on the whole issue of antisocial behaviour. I have no doubt that this is the most serious issue facing our country today, and I do not say that lightly, given the other issues that we are tackling in all our public services. I believe that to be the case, and I base that statement on the experiences of the constituents I meet as I go round my constituency and of those who come to my advice surgeries, and on the findings of the surveys and questionnaires that I have undertaken since I was elected to Parliament. Time and again, antisocial behaviour and crime are put ahead of people's other concerns about health, education or transport.
	The Government are absolutely right to focus on this issue. It is a huge issue; indeed, it is probably so big that we need something comparable, in our own time, to the reformation of manners that Wilberforce wanted to launch in his day. The scale of the problem before us really is of that nature. When we look at antisocial behaviour, we have to look at the long-term causes that have brought about the state of affairs today as well as at the short-term remedies that we are going to bring to bear on the problem. Looking at the long-term causes, I find myself in complete agreement with the White Paper. On page 21, it states:
	"Healthy communities are built on strong families."
	It goes on to say that
	"Parents . . . have to ensure their children understand the difference between right and wrong."
	How true those words are. If the people engaging in antisocial behaviour today had had the good fortune to be in homes in which right and wrong were clearly portrayed to them from an early age, the scale of the problem would be very much less today.
	I welcome the Government's focus on trying to support family life. I welcome the measures in the Bill and the expenditure in the Lord Chancellor's Department and elsewhere to try to do something about the scale of the problem involved in putting family life back together in this country. I would say, however, that the amounts being so spent are minuscule compared with the cost to the Government of picking up the pieces. I wonder whether it is time for us all to have an honest debate in the House about whether we need to shift the balance a little more between prevention and cure in this area.
	I will judge the success or failure of the Bill on whether it makes a real difference in cases such as those that have arisen in my constituency recently. To preserve the privacy of those concerned, I shall not go into them in detail. The first case concerned a young mother who was desperate to move from her council flat because of the behaviour of the tenants above her. The second involved a young man whose door had been kicked down twice and had paint spattered all over it. The third involved a mother whose daughter had received death threats from people further down the street. In the fourth case, a young couple suffered such continual noise and disruption in their first home that their only option was to move out of the area. Perhaps the most harrowing case of all, however, involved a gentleman who came to see me two weeks ago. He and his partner had been forced to put their two young children into voluntary care to get them out of the street and the immediate neighbourhood in which they lived.
	These are unacceptable circumstances for any of our constituents to find themselves in, and the real test of the Bill will be whether it will make a meaningful difference to such people, and whether it will help us to move forward and to solve problems such as the five in my constituency that I have outlined.
	To solve such problems, we need more police on the streets. There is no other way round the problem. To enforce the measures in the Bill, we need more police constables patrolling our constituencies. That is why I welcome unreservedly the measures proposed by my own Opposition Front Bench to put 40,000 more police on to our streets over the next eight years. The Government have talked about increased police numbers, and I welcome that, but there is a difference between the establishment that the Government figures describe and the number of officers on the ground. In one of my police stations the other day, there were supposed to be six officers and a sergeant out on patrol. The reality was that there were only two constables. All the others were either elsewhere doing training courses or attending magistrates courts. They were not there to do the job that they had been called to do.
	We also need courts that will process cases much faster. One of my constituents had his front door kicked down in January and again in February. He tells me that the court case will be delayed until June by forensic laboratory tests. The spattering of his door with paint, also in February, is still being investigated. That gentleman will have had to suffer the results of extreme antisocial behaviour for five months—150 days—because of the slowness of our courts.
	We must ensure that guidelines and regulations, as well as the laws passed here, are intelligible. I learned recently that a local authority felt that it must inform people who had been complained about of the intention to install noise-monitoring equipment. That impression was corrected only by a letter to me from the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life, citing the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I wonder how many local authorities and housing authorities are not using powers available to them because the guidance and regulations are not clear.
	Finally, let me say something about litter, graffiti and fly tipping. I feel passionately about the problem of litter, which, as many Members have said, represents the first step in the descent into antisocial behaviour. We cannot rely entirely on local authorities and others to clear up litter; we need to realise that we are all responsible for the litter outside our houses, outside shops and outside businesses. Until we understand that we are all involved, not just our local authority litter-pickers, we will not make things better. Schools can play a vital role in teaching children and young people about the importance of picking up litter and not dropping it themselves.
	When I go for a walk with my family nowadays, we take plastic bags with us so that we can pick up litter. Such action can lead to a staggering change in attitude—a sense of ownership of the street or road in which one lives.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his eight minutes.
	4.32 pm

Ashok Kumar: I welcome the Bill. I am glad that a Labour Government are finally getting tough on the menaces who plague decent, upstanding citizens. The Bill is about decency, and about tackling what I call the yob culture out there.
	I want to comment on parts 3, 4, 5 and 6, and to link them with my constituency and with what my local authorities are doing. Clauses 29 and 38 will be warmly welcomed by my constituents in the Hemlington ward of south Middlesbrough, because they finally give the police and other authorities power to challenge antisocial youths and other groups on our streets. Their behaviour has been a particular problem in Hemlington, on estates and in the shopping precinct. Local shopkeepers tell me that the excessive numbers of youths congregating in the precinct frighten away their customers, many of whom are elderly. Not just the profitability but the very survival of many of those shopkeepers is threatened as a result, and ordinary men and women are forced to change their normal routines because of the behaviour patterns of a small minority.
	I also welcome clause 32, which gives powers to community support officers, thus freeing police resources and enabling them to be targeted more efficiently. It also establishes a more flexible and consistent framework of crime prevention, as opposed to reaction to crime. Both the local authorities in my area, Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland borough councils, operate warden schemes. Thanks to mayor Ray Mallon's lead, Middlesbrough now has one of the biggest schemes in the country, tied to a comprehensive database that logs the shifting patterns of antisocial behaviour and can quickly identify emerging hotspots. The Redcar and Cleveland borough council scheme is similarly spread over a large area. The authority deserves praise for being the first in the country to achieve a warden presence in every community. Those measures in the Bill will provide support for the good work already being achieved by local authorities in my constituency. The task now is to align the work of those wardens with the new powers and duties that will be open to them under the Bill.
	Cleveland police have reported that there are 2,110 fewer victims of crime on a year-on-year basis. In January to March this year, compared to January to March last year, individual incidents of crime fell by 2,470. With a record number of 1,600 officers and 40 police community support officers, that provides a good base on which to build the new legislation.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman referred with enthusiasm to clause 38. What merit is there in imposing a financial penalty on 16 and 17-year-olds who have no money, who will get into debt in paying the penalty or who will simply fail to comply? Would it not be better to punish them in a more constructive way?

Ashok Kumar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, but he has not seen the study from the four pilot areas, which has demonstrated that most offenders are generally happy to pay within 21 days, so his case does not hold up.

Matthew Green: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the pilot areas that he cites penalty notices were not applied to 16 and 17-year-olds? They were applied to those aged 18 or over, so he is quoting something that does not meet the point that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made.

Ashok Kumar: There is no evidence to suggest, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) claimed, that those people would not be able to pay. They are paying. In answer to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), we have no way of knowing that they will not pay.
	Middlesbrough council told me that previous legislation has enabled it to become more proactive in relation to crime and antisocial behaviour. Legislation such as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 2000 has given local authorities the ability to tackle antisocial behaviour head on and they are using those powers to help to win court orders excluding particular named individuals from areas where those people have terrorised whole communities of decent people.
	I strongly welcome part 6, clauses 42 to 44. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), is on the Front Bench. North-east MPs made strong representations to him on that aspect of the Bill, which deals with the possession of air weapons, especially by youngsters under the age of 17, and the potential outlawing of air weapons capable of being "re-engineered" so as to fire conventional ammunition.
	The misuse of air weapons has been a big issue in my constituency and across Teesside and the north-east. It led to my local paper, the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette, running the brilliant "ban the young guns" campaign, and a petition carrying many thousands of signatures collected across Teesside being presented to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a visit to that paper's offices.
	There has been case after case of youngsters using air guns and rifles in open space around some of the more isolated villages in the east Cleveland area. It has escalated into people becoming the victims of air rifle sniping. A number of families in my constituency have been lucky not to lose a son or daughter, or at least see them blinded. The banning of the sale of air weapons to children under 17 will remove at a stroke the conduit through which this behaviour occurs.
	Similarly, I welcome the provision in clause 42 that bans the carrying of imitation firearms in a public place. As we know, such imitation weapons are not the cap-guns of our youth; they are carefully engineered replicas of real weapons such as those made by Smith and Wesson, Uzi and Heckler and Koch. We all know that these weapons have been used in robberies. A few months ago, a shop in the Tees Valley ran a quarter-page advert in a regional paper advertising such weapons. One possible amendment to clause 42 could involve banning any advertising of such weapons, except at the point of sale. I ask the Minister to consider such a provision. After all, we already ban the advertising of tobacco goods, and it could be argued that a similar case can be made in this regard.
	I strongly welcome the Bill, and I wish it a happy passage through this House and elsewhere.

Chris Grayling: I, too, welcome the Government's attempts in this area, although I have to say that this is a bits and pieces Bill. Some of it is good, some of it bad, and frankly, other bits of it are pointless. However, it is a step on the road, and I commend Ministers for that. There is an awful lot more to do in an area that undoubtedly affects every one of our constituents to some degree. Society as a whole has got to get to grips with this problem; otherwise, the decline in standards will lead to an increasing number of people feeling oppressed and under siege. Indeed, those of our elderly population who come into contact with antisocial behaviour will feel downright scared, and their entire quality of life could be affected. It is therefore extremely important that we get to grips with this issue.
	I want to begin by confronting the Minister head-on with the Home Secretary's comments in his opening address about police numbers. My constituency is on the fringes of London, and like many other Members with such constituencies, I see the real problems that are caused by the way in which the Government are handling police funding and rewards, and by their entire approach to policing. I want to take the Minister to task on the problems that we face, and to encourage him to look more closely at them.
	The truth immediately outside London is that, far from having more police, we have too few police and the numbers are reducing. We suffer from an overspill factor: a Metropolitan police area that has undoubtedly gained more officers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who is not in her place, said, even certain London areas do not have enough police on the streets. However, it is counties such as Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Kent and Essex that are suffering in particular from the drive to recruit officers into the Metropolitan police. We as a nation are rightly facing the huge challenges that have to be met, and the Government are right to attempt to bring more officers into the Met. We see them on the streets protecting the London Eye and this place against terrorism.
	However, the reality is that a combination of the Met's aggressive outward recruitment policy in the past year or two and huge pay disparities across the London boundary—an officer in the Metropolitan police area earns £6,000 a year more than an officer in a station just two or three miles away, and receives free travel as well—has led to a huge flow of officers from just outside London into the Metropolitan police area. I see that happening day in, day out, week in, week out in my constituency. A few months ago, I stood talking to an officer in the yard of Epsom police station. He said, "I look around here and I see officers who I know are going to the Metropolitan police." The beat constable in Ashtead, the village where I live, has joined the Met. Senior officers from Epsom and Ewell have left to join the Met. I also recently visited some special constables at the local police station. The specials do excellent work in our area, across Surrey and throughout the country. They are a very under-praised resource.

Bob Ainsworth: In his tirade against the Metropolitan police, will not the hon. Gentleman accept that that force is training record numbers of recruits, and that it loses officers to other forces as well as gaining them from other forces? It is a two-way process, as the figures show.

Chris Grayling: I take issue with the Minister over that. When, as the local Member of Parliament, I visited my local police station, I discovered that the special constables are the longest serving officers in the area. They are the ones who retain knowledge of the area's particular problems, and who know who the troublemakers are. Part of the challenge of tackling antisocial behaviour is knowing who the troublemakers are, where to find them and where to watch over them. When the experience in a police area resides mostly with the volunteers, and when the regular officers are mainly raw recruits who stay around for a year or two before they cross the border for £6,000 a year more, the Minister must understand that that has an impact on policing, and on the force's ability to tackle antisocial behaviour.

Andrew Selous: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and my force in Bedfordshire suffers from exactly the problems that he has described. Does he agree that there is something unethical about offering officers London allowances for housing and so on—and free travel—when they live outside London? It is simply not fair on forces outside London, which suffer a terrible problem of retention. Many young people do not consider joining their local county forces, but instead go straight to the Met.

Chris Grayling: I very much echo the points made by my hon. Friend. We will be able to tackle antisocial behaviour in the areas outside London only if we move away from the present arbitrary allowance structure. We need an allowance structure that gradually dips as one moves further away from London, not one that simply falls off a cliff.
	Moreover, the resourcing levels received by forces outside London following changes to the grant structure mean that it is impossible for neighbourhood officers to tackle antisocial behaviour in the way we want them to. I have another example for the Minister. One of my local police stations is just across the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), but it also serves parts of my constituency. A couple of weeks ago we discovered that its four neighbourhood officers did not have access to a police car. I hope that the lack is being rectified, but the example shows the problems that we face in the south-east, where the structure of police funding has moved resources away from the fringe forces. The resources have either gone into the Metropolitan police area, or to forces elsewhere in the country. Ministers need to understand that.

Andrew Rosindell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong that outer London areas such as my constituency and his own—which is on London's outer rim, although not part of greater London—should be so badly affected by the fact that the Metropolitan police's resources are centred on inner London? As a result, we are disadvantaged, as all the resources are spent in the inner London areas. Does he also agree that we need to restore community beat officers? They understand communities and know their areas like the backs of their hands, and they know too who are the people who cause the antisocial behaviour that we want to tackle.

Chris Grayling: I agree totally with my hon. Friend. That is why it is so frustrating in constituencies such as mine to see an experienced neighbourhood beat officer—who knows the troublemakers and who has worked for months to tackle the problem—being tempted away to go and work a few miles up the road for £6,000 a year more. The Minister must understand the problems that that causes. I hope that the Home Office will be able to provide some solution in the months ahead.
	I have a couple of final points to make. The first is in relation to graffiti. I welcome the proposals in the Bill to outlaw the sale of cans of spray paint to people under 18 years of age, but will the Minister look at the issue of internet sales? It appears that a number of suppliers of specialist spray paints specifically designed for graffiti make their products available via the internet. The methods outlined in the Bill to tackle graffiti may very well fail to deal with that problem. When he discusses the detail of the Bill in Standing Committee, will the Minister, with his officials and members of the Committee, give full consideration to the matter? I hope that he will be able to find ways to tighten the Bill to ensure that the trafficking that I have described cannot take place.
	Finally, I want to turn to the principle that parents can be fined, and that teaching staff will carry out the process. That is nonsense. Teachers are already exposed to dealing with the practical difficulties of antisocial behaviour—in the classroom, and from parents who challenge their authority. Teaching is an extremely difficult job. All too often, our teachers find themselves up before the police or the courts facing spurious allegations from young people. That is not an isolated event: it happens all the time. Simply expecting our teachers to stand up in the face of troublesome parents and issue a fixed penalty notice is unrealistic and absurd, and the Government need to think again, because there has to be a better way. The principle of tackling parents whose children cause trouble is a good one, but this is not the right way to do it.
	I welcome the overall strategy of the Bill, but it goes only a fraction of the way towards dealing with the problem, and some of the ideas in it are frankly wrong. I hope that in Committee it can turn from an inadequate Bill into a much more effective Bill that will achieve the goals that hon. Members on both sides of the House want it to achieve.

Marsha Singh: I rise to support the Bill. We should regard it not as a stand-alone Bill, but as part of a package of measures that the Government are taking, which includes the Criminal Justice Bill, the Fireworks Bill and the forthcoming housing Bill. When that package is in place, we will be in a very good position to tackle crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour on the streets in our towns and cities.
	We all know that antisocial behaviour, even at low levels, is a major problem on our streets—it certainly is in my constituency. It can and does damage our communities, our quality of life and our environment. There is an even more important reason to tackle antisocial behaviour: if we do not, we are in danger of allowing young people or, indeed, older people who engage in such behaviour to drift into more serious crime. It is of paramount importance to draw the line and to say, "Stop now, before you transgress further and possibly end up in prison."
	I strongly welcome part 1 of the Bill, which gives the police powers to close down premises that are being used for the supply or use of class A drugs or are associated with disorder or nuisance to the public. Some hon. Members suggested that that part of the Bill should not be there. However, every time constituents have raised the issue with me it has been clear that nuisance and disorder are created just by the comings and goings, noise and so forth, and the police will not find it difficult to deal with.I very much welcome the speed with which action can be taken. When a closure notice is served, a court hearing will be held within 48 hours. I commend that, and I wish that other parts of our criminal justice system responded as quickly.
	My attention has been drawn to clause 10, which deals with compensation. I was surprised by that, and I ask the Minister to clarify the circumstances in which compensation might be paid to an owner of closed premises. I cannot imagine that such an owner would not know what had been going on in his or her premises and must have gone on with his or her consent.
	I generally welcome part 2, which deals with housing issues and associated antisocial behaviour. Clause 12 requires social landlords to publish antisocial behaviour policies and procedures. The Local Government Association contends that that is unnecessary and will lead to duplication, as those duties already exist under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that criticism.
	I support clause 14 and the power to allow a secure tenancy to be brought to an end by a demotion order. That clearly says to tenants who are engaged in antisocial behaviour that the writing is on the wall. If they do not then change their behaviour, they have had their final public warning and must accept the consequences of continuing with it. I am happy that there is also a carrot: if the antisocial behaviour ceases, after a year the secure tenancy will be reinstated. That is perfectly right and fair.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I want to pick up on that point about a cooling-off period. The hon. Gentleman comes from an area that probably has more problems than my rural area, but does he feel that one year is long enough? Where antisocial behaviour is concerned, offenders tend to be repeat offenders.

Marsha Singh: I am not sure; we will have to suck it and see. Given my Government's willingness to see how legislation works in practice, I am confident that, if there is a problem, it will be dealt with.
	I welcome part 4 of the Bill, which is headed "Dispersal of groups etc.". Groups of youths who congregate at various sites can cause tremendous distress and intimidation. Shopkeepers suffer, and elderly citizens in elderly people's homes suffer tremendously, from that kind of behaviour. However, I echo some concerns that hon. Members have raised. The procedure seems quite bureaucratic, and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who is not in his place at the moment, went through them. In brief, there has to be consultation with the local authority and the publication of a notice. If I were in a gang of young people, as soon as that notice was published, I would move my gang's activities to another site. Would that mean that the whole procedure would have to be gone through again for the new site? I ask the Minister to reconsider the workings of these measures. It may be easier to give the police a direct power, if there is a problem in a particular area, to go and deal with it.
	I welcome part 6 of the Bill, which deals with air weapons and imitation firearms. Part 6 will be widely welcomed—indeed, it has already been welcomed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and like-minded organisations. Last year, the RSPCA recorded 903 incidents of injury to animals by airguns. If this Bill can help to eradicate or reduce that cruel and wanton infliction of suffering on animals, it will have been worth while.
	The Bill proposes to extend the use of fixed penalty notices. I have an open mind on this issue. I understand that pilot projects have proved successful, but will the Minister clarify what will happen if somebody riding a bike on a pavement or doing something else that warrants an FPN refuses to give his or her name and address? I presume that a police officer would have the power of arrest, but what power would a community support officer or a neighbourhood warden have?
	It is hard to discuss antisocial behaviour without referring to the disgraceful scenes at England's international football fixture just a few days ago. That was the most awful antisocial behaviour of all. The Government should revisit their policies on this. It seems to me that the current sanctions have not had the desired effect. Is it not possible—in this Bill or in the Criminal Justice Bill—to introduce an offence of being involved in, or causing, violence that takes place at, or is associated with, a sporting event at home or abroad; and can that offence not carry a minimum two-year sentence and a maximum five-year sentence?

Tony Banks: Will my hon. Friend join me in suggesting that the English Football Association should not make any tickets available for the return match when England play Turkey in Istanbul?

Marsha Singh: That is an excellent suggestion. It is obvious that the trouble will be repeated in Istanbul. The FA can and should impose that sanction. I hope that the Minister will consider the points that I have raised in this regard.
	When I listen to the Liberals on crime and disorder and the justice system, I despair. If ever they were in power—God forbid—we would have social workers enforcing our laws, not police officers. Conservative Members can smile, but when they say that they will fund a further 40,000 police officers, will they please tell us where the money will come from? The officers will be funded by tax rises or deep cuts. Will such deep cuts be made to spending on health and hospitals or education?

Mark Francois: The funding to provide those extra police officers will come from savings that will result from our new asylum policy, which will use quotas.

Marsha Singh: The laughter throughout the Chamber shows how ridiculous that comment was.
	I welcome the Bill and I wish it well.

Matthew Green: I want to focus on the Bill's desperately negative overall view of young people. It contains nothing to suggest that the Government value young people. They have done many good things for young people such as setting up the splash initiative and the children and young people's unit, but there is nothing in the Bill for young people except draconian measures. It sends the message that young people are the problem—full stop. Centrepoint says that the Bill has a "prevailing negativity". The Bill is all about enforcement; there is nothing about prevention or rehabilitation.
	There is confusion about the age at which provisions apply throughout the Bill. Part 4 addresses the removal of young people to their houses by police, and it will apply to people under 16. Part 5 of the Bill relates to penalty notices and if the Secretary of State were to pass a statutory instrument, the provisions could apply to children as young as 10. Part 6—"Firearms"—will set an age limit of 17, and provisions in part 7 will set an age limit for buying spray paint at 18. The Government are confused about the age at which young people are defined under the Bill. Will they make up their mind whether the age is 16, 10, 17 or 18, because it would be easier to find support for the Bill if they reached a satisfactory view?
	There is a real oddity about the provisions on spray paint. People aged 17 may hold a driving licence and buy a car, but if their car gets scratched, they will not be allowed to buy spray paint to cover the scratch. If the Government reduced the age limit from 18 to 16, many of us would find it easier to support the provision, but they insist on a limit at 18.

Wayne David: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the age limit should be 16?

Matthew Green: I am suggesting that the Bill should adopt a more coherent approach on the ages of young people to which its provisions apply. If we are to have an age limit, I would prefer it to be 16. After all, I introduced a ten-minute Bill to reduce the voting age to 16, so I am being consistent.
	Curfew orders, which were never used, will be abolished and part 4 will instead allow a police officer to exercise the power to take young people back to their homes. The curfews were a matter for a local authority, so the provisions effectively take the power to make decisions from a community's elected local politicians and put it into one person's hands.

Helen Jones: What would the hon. Gentleman say to residents in the Grasmere area of my constituency who are consistently plagued by gangs of young people? The residents do not care who takes the decision as long as the young people are moved off the streets.

Matthew Green: If those young people are committing an offence, they should be brought to book. However, let me give the hon. Lady an example. Four or five pensioners go to collect their pensions at the post office—if they still have a post office—and gather outside to discuss something. Obviously, they will not be dispersed and sent home, although technically they could be. However, if a group of four or five young people gather outside the local shop to talk about things, that could be seen as intimidation.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Green: No, I have given way several times and we have an eight-minute limit on speeches. [Interruption.] Go on, then.

Shona McIsaac: Third time lucky in my attempts to intervene on a Liberal Democrat.
	On consulting my residents, I discovered that it is not just elderly people who are terrorised by gangs of youths, but younger people themselves. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that? We are only talking about the young people who cause trouble, not those who do nothing wrong.

Matthew Green: I agree. I did not say that only elderly people were worried. However, article 11 of the convention on human rights, incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998, grants a freedom of association. The Bill goes against that.
	There are two ways to read clause 29(3). I do not think that anyone would have a problem if we took it to mean that a constable can use the power to disperse people when he has reasonable grounds for believing that the behaviour of a group of people has caused members of the public to be intimidated and harassed. However, it also states that that power may be used when
	"a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence . . . of a group . . . is likely to result, in any members of the public being . . . alarmed".
	A few young people standing on a street corner might alarm someone even though they are doing nothing wrong. If the policeman thinks that they are likely to cause alarm, he can disperse them. That clause is odd and it needs to be tightened up considerably in Committee.
	On clause 29, the National Children's Bureau said:
	"This measure will simply increase local tensions among the police and young people, and the community and its young people. The power to disperse a 'group' of 2 or more young people is based on a subjective perception that they are behaving inappropriately, and contravenes their right to free assembly (Article 15 of the UNCRC)"—
	the United Nations convention on the rights of the child—
	"to engage in recreational activities (Article 31 of the UNCRC) , and to freedom of association (Article 11 of the Human Rights Act).
	Additionally, there is a general recognition within Government that there is a shortage of suitable places for young people to socialise, and some evidence that both they and their parents prefer that they remain with a group of friends in order to feel—and be—safe."

Huw Irranca-Davies: I appreciate that the National Children's Bureau and others have a voice that should be heard, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is our responsibility to have a balanced approach so that we provide opportunities for youngsters while coming down like a ton of bricks on the few extreme ones who do not accord with the rules?

Matthew Green: I do, but the key word is "balanced", and my point is that parts of the Bill are far from balanced. I hope that we will rectify that in Committee.
	On spray paints, I cannot understand how anyone in their right mind can say that someone, aged 17, who wants to fix the car that he owns is not allowed to buy the paint for it. All we will do is stop the shopkeeper selling the paint to the young person. There is nothing to stop that young person walking around with it, asking an 18-year-old to buy it or buying it over the internet. There are huge loopholes that any young person who is determined to use spray paints for graffiti will discover. The Government are again doing something that sounds good in headline terms—it gets them an extra line on their leaflets for the local elections—but, if we are to tackle the problem of graffiti, it is not a properly thought-out approach.
	We need a more positive approach. The most successful examples of tackling antisocial behaviour by young people have come as a result of engaging those young people in finding the solutions themselves. There is nothing in the Bill about involving young people in doing that, but that is the way to achieve real progress, and that is what ought to be supported.
	The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who is not present at the moment, spoke about a group of children who have been involved in helping to tackle problems of antisocial behaviour in their area. I am delighted that they have done so: that is exactly what ought to be happening. When those young people discuss the results of their activity, however, they had better not do it in a group standing on the street corner, as they will not be allowed to do so. They better not go down to the shop to buy spray paints—

Ashok Kumar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Green: I will not.
	What is more, those young people had better not walk to their friend's house after 9 o'clock at night, if they are under 16, to discuss their success. The Home Office's schizophrenic attitude towards young people has caused severe problems, which it needs to address—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.

David Wright: I know that Labour Members will be reassured to know that I have been polishing up my new Labour credentials: I have been reading the coffee table book of the No. 10 policy unit, "Leadership", by Rudolph Giuliani. It is an excellent read, and includes the phrase,
	"Everyone's accountable, all of the time".
	Of course, he is right. Everyone is accountable all of the time: we are all accountable for our actions. In my view, that applies from the police force chief constable down to every agency dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour, right down to individual citizens. We are all responsible to each other for our behaviour and accountable to each other for our actions.
	One of the criticisms that I have heard this afternoon from many Opposition Members is that the Bill is just another set of proposals adding to what the Government have already done in relation to antisocial behaviour. Is that a bad thing? I do not think so. It strengthens and builds on our work and on the Government's good track record since 1997.
	We need to place the Bill in the context of wider Government policy. We have already heard this afternoon how important the partnership agenda is in terms of delivering our policy approach in relation to reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. We have an excellent community safety partnership in Telford and Wrekin: it is one of the first that came into place. We also have an excellent police force that uses intelligence-led policing to tackle those who perpetrate crime and antisocial behaviour. I have been to the police station at Malinsgate, and have had a look at the way that that system operates, and it is having a tremendous impact on picking out those individuals who are making peoples' lives a misery across our estates and in our communities. It is working extremely well.
	The Bill must be considered in the light of a raft of other Government policies, particularly those relating to neighbourhood renewal. It is incredibly important that we promote sustainable communities across our country, and that we address particular urban areas where crime and urban design are key issues, and where strategies pick up economic regeneration as part of a holistic approach to building sustainable communities. I have a number of wards in my constituency, such as Brookside and Stirchley, where the local authority and other agencies are coming together in effective partnership to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour. Two councillors in that area, Councillor Jim Hicks and Councillor Dave Morgan, are doing an excellent job. What they are trying to do is close off underpasses, deal with graffiti and pick up on many of the issues that could be considered as low-level crime and disorder but that affect and impact on people living in those communities.
	The Government's education agenda is also incredibly important. We have already heard this afternoon how important citizenship is. I am very proud of the Government's work to bring citizenship into the heart of the curriculum in this country. We need to promote parenting skills: there has been consensus across the House this afternoon that those skills are extremely important. We also need to build on excellent policy initiatives such as sure start. I have two superb sure start schemes in my constituency, which make a real impact in relation to improving parenting skills and ensuring that we lift the quality of what I would call the social infrastructure of our communities.
	The Government have put a lot of effort into tackling social exclusion—the Bill sits alongside that effort—and looking at tax credits, the minimum wage and the poverty issues that underlie crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities. Contrary to what the Opposition have said, there has been a dramatic increase in police numbers. I was very concerned, however, that those in the local Conservative group on Telford and Wrekin council are not willing to back the neighbourhood warden scheme that the Labour council is proposing, if it gets re-elected in May. [Interruption]. That unwillingness is a symbol of the Conservatives' lack of commitment to such an approach towards dealing with antisocial behaviour.
	We have also heard that alcohol abuse is a key issue, and I welcome the publication of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy.

Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend may not have heard one of only two Conservative Members now in the Chamber say, "We want proper coppers." Does my hon. Friend welcome the 42 extra proper coppers that we have in Telford and Wrekin and the 300 additional police officers that the West Mercia force is recruiting during this year?

David Wright: I absolutely support and endorse that; it is testament to what we have done as a Government in trying to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in Telford and Wrekin. I find it amazing that Conservative Members—the Conservative Benches are almost empty—are unable to back some of the quality schemes that a Labour council is trying to put together.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman's constituency neighbours mine, and I am pleased to support the fact that there will be 300 extra police officers in West Mercia. However, that recruitment is the result of a 33 per cent. council tax rise that West Mercia police authority introduced because it has given up waiting for extra funds from central Government. It took the decision into its own hands and raised its proportion of the council tax by 33 per cent. last year—a move that I support, and I am sure other hon. Members support it, too.

David Wright: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports that move, but I cannot see what point he is making. I welcome new police officers in Telford and Wrekin, as does my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley).
	I should like to turn now to some of the specifics in the Bill. The environmental powers in part 7 are particularly welcome, as they are linked with the need to ensure that we improve the urban environment for key communities. Dispersing groups of young people is very important, and we need to strengthen those powers. I know that people in Telford will welcome that because I receive a lot of letters from people complaining about groups of young people hanging around and causing extreme problems in my community.
	The reforms on airguns are also particularly important. I hope that the Minister will take up earlier suggestions about a possible ban on advertising some of the more extreme airgun products. I saw some adverts in a recent Sunday newspaper in which airguns were designed to look like Uzi sub-machine-guns. That marketing was targeted largely at young people. We need to consider the advertising regime for airguns, as well as the need to strengthen the powers in relation to age limits.
	Again, the housing powers, coupled with the new Housing Bill that will be introduced, are welcome. Tenancy demotion is a very good strategy in warning people that their behaviour as social housing tenants may not be acceptable, but it is important that we do not stigmatise social housing tenants, most of whom are extremely good tenants, and we should say that often. Social housing should not be the tenure of last resort in this country; it should be a positive choice for people, and we need to ensure that we do not tar all those who live in social housing with the same brush.
	Most of the antisocial behaviour problems in my constituency often relate to owner-occupiers who act unreasonably, and we need to ensure that the powers in the Bill effectively deal with them. It is very frustrating when people come to see me about the antisocial behaviour of an owner-occupier, because there is little that I can do to support my constituents, except advise them to take legal advice about the terms on which their neighbours purchased their property.
	Antisocial behaviour orders have been mentioned. We have used ASBOs in Telford and Wrekin, but one of the key measurements that we have considered is the fact that in 70 or 80 per cent. of cases where the ASBO process has begun, the ASBO has not had to be used. The initial process necessary to issue an ASBO has resolved the crime and antisocial behaviour. That is a triumph for the system. So we cannot look at the figures and criticise local agencies by saying that ASBOs have not been used effectively. However, local authorities can spray out ASBOs as much as they like, but without backing from other services and agencies they are worthless.
	Much antisocial behaviour could be described as low level, but it is none the less draining of people's morale. It fosters the feeling that an area or an estate is out of control and can trigger a spiral of decline. The Bill adds positively to the range of powers available to the police and other local agencies. It deserves the full support of every Member of the House. The Opposition, especially the Liberal Democrats, should remember the words of Rudolph Giuliani:
	"Everyone's accountable, all of the time".

Helen Jones: Like many of my colleagues, I heartily welcome the Bill, which reflects the real concerns of my constituents—decent people who are fed up with having their lives made a misery by a few yobs. My constituents merely want to feel secure going about their daily business and to live unmolested in their own homes. That is not much to ask; in fact, it is the minimum that they should expect us to provide for them.
	There are serious questions to be asked about the type of society that we have created, where antisocial behaviour takes place and people feel powerless to confront it. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that we cannot wait for answers to those philosophical questions; we must do something immediately to protect our constituents. I make no apologies to anyone for coming down heavy on yobs who terrorise a whole neighbourhood and prevent people from living peacefully in their own homes.
	That is why I especially welcome the provisions to deal with premises used for the sale and consumption of drugs. It will not be a problem to prove disorder associated with such premises. Every Member has heard the stories of people who live next door to such places. We have heard about people turning up at all hours of the night looking for their fix. We have heard about the fights that break out, about people knocking on the wrong door and about the drugs paraphernalia left scattered about the area, often where children play. Whether those premises are commercial or residential, the nightmare for their neighbours is the same.
	The Bill's specific provisions, as well as clause 13, which allows social landlords to apply for injunctions when their premises are being used for immoral or illegal purposes, will help to tackle those problems. My constituents do not want a long debate on the subject. They want those dealers off their estates. It is as simple as that.
	It is important that we encourage the courts to attach powers of arrest or exclusion to injunctions; otherwise they will be worthless. We must also encourage social landlords to be proactive in using such powers. Far too many of them still expect their tenants to provide the evidence, and are reluctant to go to court. Too many housing officers expect tenants to put up with conditions that they would not tolerate in a million years. They must tackle the antisocial behaviour, whether from drug dealers or anyone else, on our streets.
	We have all seen such behaviour. In my constituency, there are flats and houses in the middle of decent, well-planned estates where people have moved in and turned the place into a midden. Their friends arrive at all hours of the day or night, blasting out loud music from car stereos and intimidating people who try to intervene. I have seen the neighbours of such people in my constituency surgery, almost in tears due to fear and to lack of sleep. They are in despair because nobody is doing anything to help them. We have to tackle such problems, whether through injunctions or possession orders, so I am pleased that the Bill includes provisions to require courts, when considering possession on the grounds of nuisance, to look into the actual or likely effect of the antisocial behaviour on other people in the neighbourhood.
	We must also ask how we got into this state. I recall the area where I grew up. People were not well off, but the occasional problem family—and we all had them—was well contained. I am forced to the conclusion that that was because communities were more cohesive then. People knew one another. There was a sense that young people were a communal responsibility. We could go in and out of our neighbours' houses. Equally, if children were misbehaving, a passing adult would feel free to stop them. As adults usually knew our mum, our dad, our granny and everybody else, we usually stopped what we were doing fairly quickly.
	We cannot recreate those communities. Society is not the same now. However, we can take the best out of those societies. We can learn the lesson of putting people into work, because work provides the discipline that goes with it. We can learn lessons about breaking down the barriers between generations, about encouraging people to take up voluntary and community services and also about encouraging people to take responsibility for their communities.
	We can also start reclaiming our public spaces so that people feel safe. That is why I welcome the provisions about graffiti and fly posting. Of course, we can all read about crime. If people go out and find that the lights are out and the walls are covered in graffiti—perhaps a group of young people are gathered at the end of the street and are not doing any harm, but because of the way they are dressed they look intimidating, especially to an elderly person—they are fearful. We must reclaim public spaces by improving the environment and through far more community policing.
	I have seen the effects of community policing in part of my constituency. We now have a community action team, which has set up bases in a school and a shopping precinct. The officers patrol on bikes and they get to know the community and the young people within it. We need to encourage more of that, but we also need to give those involved in community policing the powers to tackle real disorder when it occurs.
	In several parts of my constituency we have seen the intimidation and fear that is caused by gangs of youths gathering. These are not ordinary young people who are out for a chat in the evening; they are setting out to intimidate an entire area. I welcome the powers that will be given to the police to designate an area and to disperse groups of young people. Residents in my constituency are not prepared to put up with that sort of behaviour anymore.
	We need to tackle the manifestations of antisocial behaviour. In the long term, we need to examine its root causes. However, we must not tar all young people with the same brush. We must distinguish between real antisocial behaviour and the normal noise that young people make. It is not a crime to be 14 and playing football with your mates. Our decent young people should not be denied the use of their own streets and mixing with their own age group because of our intolerance. We can make streets safer for them by tackling the bad apples, and I hope that we shall do so.

Kate Hoey: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who has encapsulated what I think all of us feel about the horror of antisocial behaviour in our constituencies, which blights all our surgeries and everything that we do.
	There is much that I agree with in the Bill. We need to consider it along with the raft of other measures that the Home Office has already introduced and will introduce. On that basis, there is much to support. My constituents, and most other constituents, if they were listening to the debate, would want to ask whether the measures set out in the Bill will speed up the way in which local authorities, the police and all the various services can act when there are particular problems. Those problems do not relate only to graffiti and noisy neighbours. There are many problems, particularly in inner city areas, that can make life miserable for many people, especially for elderly people.
	Our constituents would also want to ask how the provisions of the Bill can be enforced. We have done well with policing numbers and I thank the Home Office—particularly my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—for taking seriously the need for extra police officers. However, I still think that we need more officers. In my constituency, for example, if we are to do some of the things that are set out in the Bill, and do them properly, we will not be able to manage with the present police resources, despite having 30 extra community police officers, most of whom are always dedicated to the northern part of my constituency where the most high-profile buildings are. I very much support the proposals on designated areas, but I could give the Minister at least half a dozen areas right now that should be designated, and the police would probably agree with me. However, there is no point doing so if police do not then come in, enforce the provisions, and deal with the problem. I want to make another plea for the increasing use of community police officers—the old bobby on the beat—as there is no doubt that seeing the same police officer time after time makes a huge difference to people. We can all put pressure on our own police commanders to make sure that they know that that is our priority.
	I agree with Members who have talked about the raiding of drugs premises. There is no reason for needing that extra little bit in the Bill about having to show antisocial behaviour or causing a nuisance—that is nonsense. If hard drug dealing is going on, it has to be tackled immediately. On the question of noise, recently a group of people went to a rave party on a weekend at a huge squat in my constituency. Everybody in the neighbourhood got on to the police and local environment health officers. The police came along quickly and had a look, but they said, "Too many people are involved—we do not want to cause a problem." I said that if that building had been in Whitehall, they would have gone in to take those people out and stop the noise. We cannot have double standards—if things are good enough for one part of the country, they are good enough elsewhere.
	The Minister probably realises that I have concerns about one aspect of the Bill. I have no problem with clause 42, as long as the Home Secretary abides by his commitment, made when I intervened earlier, that law-abiding people taking their airgun, air pistol or air rifle to a place where they can shoot legally, are entitled not to be harassed or treated as if they are about to commit a crime. However, I have concerns about the changed age limit on the possession of airguns. Most participants in our incredibly successful shooting sports, whether clay pigeon shooting, pistol shooting or any other discipline, began by using air rifles or air pistols. At the moment, it is not legal to buy an airgun until the age of 17, which I accept, but people can own an airgun. Individuals who are shooting seriously in competitive shooting will probably be given a gun—they can even get a grant from Sport England to get an airgun. How are those people, if they are serious about competing, going to meet the requirement to train under the supervision of an adult over 21? In some scout groups and other youth clubs where shooting takes place legally, the instructors are not 21, so there is a genuine problem. I hope that the Minister will look at that, as we cannot afford to discriminate against law-abiding shooters. Many junior members of our Great Britain teams travel abroad, but they will not be able to get a permit to travel to some countries unless they own their own gun. However, as they will not be able to do so, they cannot travel. The handgun ban utterly destroyed the opportunity for legitimate shooters to shoot in this country, leading them to have to travel abroad, and we could do similar damage to other gun sports.

Bob Ainsworth: I would be more than happy to look at that if it is a problem, but I cannot see how travel abroad will be affected by the fact that a parent must own the gun rather than the person participating in the sport. We are not trying to prevent people from learning about and getting involved in gun sports under properly organised and supervised conditions. We are seeking to clamp down on the abuse and misuse that take place in my hon. Friend's constituency and many other places the length and breadth of the country.

Kate Hoey: I accept that, but the Minister needs to look carefully at the provisions on travel abroad. If he talks to various sporting organisations, they will point out those anomalies. I am merely asking that in Committee the issue be treated carefully. The people who most dislike the misuse of guns are the legitimate shooters in the clubs, who do a great deal to educate young people. More education would make a big difference.
	I wonder why the Home Office has changed its mind since the Home Affairs Committee said two years ago:
	"We believe that a proportion of air weapons abuse committed by juveniles may derive from wider social problems which will not be properly addressed simply by tightening firearms controls".
	The Government accepted that view at the time and it was reflected in their own evidence to the Select Committee. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will explain the sudden change of mind.
	I should like to conclude by referring to the 15-year-old twins, Jennifer and Shian Corrish, who live in Shropshire. They first competed in the European air rifle championships at the age of 14 and they recently competed in the world championships. They are truly talented and have a great chance of making it to the Olympics. Like all athletes, they train a lot, but if the Bill is passed, one of their parents will have to sit with them all the time, as they do much of their training at home. That is nonsensical and it will be a disincentive to many other potential young shooters.
	I know that the provision seems to be an easy solution to the problem of the misuse of air guns, but let us not always go for the legitimate people in order to catch bad, antisocial behaviour. Let us do something about the yobbish behaviour in football, for example, rather than use the Bill to prevent legitimate shooters from operating. I urge the Minister to look again at the problem, and to meet a delegation from the National Rifle Association, the National Small-Bore Rifle Association and the British Olympic Association. Those bodies want to work with the Government and do not oppose many of their proposals, but they want to avoid a knee-jerk response that is not properly thought through. I hope that the Minister will listen to them. I have some minor difficulties with parts of the Bill, but they can be dealt with in Committee. I hope that the Committee will be given plenty of time to do its job.

Siobhain McDonagh: I apologise for not being present throughout the debate. Unfortunately, I was called away to do some Select Committee business. I realise that many of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I shall concentrate on the provisions on graffiti and suggest some helpful additional measures to deal with it.
	I believe that the Bill has much to do with future participation in our democracy. Many people who I speak to in my constituency—I am sure this applies to every constituency—cannot believe that politicians at local or national level are unable to remove the low-level antisocial behaviour that they experience. Why can we not resolve the problem of graffiti, stop fly tippers and prevent gangs of young children from being out late at night? To the average person, it is incomprehensible that groups of 10 and 11-year-olds can be out on a school night, or any other night, as late as 9, 10 or 11 pm.
	We can try to pigeonhole the problem by viewing it as something that happens only on the harder social housing estates, but in fact it occurs in every part of our constituencies—certainly in my own—from the hardest estates to the most suburban areas. I am concerned that, unless we sort those problems out, fewer people will vote because they will feel that we—and this applies to politicians of all parties—cannot resolve their most fundamental problems. Another danger is that people may drift to parties of the extreme right, which produce simplified solutions to problems that we have been unable to address. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill.

John Horam: I agree strongly with what the hon. Lady is saying about antisocial behaviour being just as much a problem in the leafy suburbs as in the inner city and the tougher estates. She is a London MP, as am I, as was the previous speaker. The problem has spread around all areas rather than just the inner cities, and that is the issue today.

Siobhain McDonagh: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the problem affects everyone in most parts of our constituencies, although it affects the poor and badly housed most. If people who are committed to their area can move away, they will do so in order to get away from those problems. That is how areas enter a cycle of decline.
	I welcome the Government's intention to ban the sale of spray paints to under-18s. All the voluntary schemes that we tried in my constituency have been undone by one supplier's refusal to take part, and I should like to suggest some other measures. On the storage of spray paints, I would suggest—although I cannot prove it—that most graffiti is created with spray paint that has been stolen from stores. There is some question about the responsibility of those stores to ensure that the cans are not vulnerable to thieves. I suggest that the rules that apply to fireworks, requiring them to be stored in glass cabinets, should be extended to spray paints.
	I also suggest that the Minister might consider giving local authorities power to remove graffiti from street furniture owned by the privatised utilities, such as electricity, gas and water. However much the local authority does in relation to its furniture or in helping residents, it still has a problem with other street equipment. In my constituency, the cable company Telewest is one of the worst offenders in doing next to nothing to remove graffiti and in blighting a local area. Clearly, London Transport and the Strategic Rail Authority also have a responsibility in these matters.
	More controversially, has the Minister considered the measure currently being considered in the Lords suggesting that where shopkeepers refuse over a period to remove graffiti from their shutters at night, the local authority should have power to remove that graffiti and charge the owner of the shop in the last instance?
	Finally, I wish to raise an issue that I know is difficult. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was a Minister of State at the Home Office, I spoke to him about the possibility of extending the PACE—Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—regulations to cover weapons of graffiti. Clearly, graffiti is a relatively recent problem and when that legislation was introduced, hon. Members were not mindful of spray paints, glass cutters and the other things that do so much damage to people's environment and cost so much. I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether consideration has been given to introducing stop-and-search powers in relation to the weapons of graffiti.

Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a strong case for a complete ban on the sale of spray cans to anybody, given that the removal of spray paint costs £1 million in Croydon alone and that people can use brushes or proper sprays to paint their cars?

Siobhain McDonagh: That is a radical suggestion, but I would be sympathetic to it. Nobody wants to introduce any of these measures, but in response to our constituents and their concerns, we have to take action to ensure that we all have the peaceful enjoyment of our homes and make an impact on the problems that some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies experience.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am sorry that I have had to come in and out of the Chamber during this debate. Unfortunately, the new hours mean that we all have to attend other meetings.
	Without detaining the House, I want to speak about rural areas. I represent a very large rural area—Exmoor. If we have a problem with antisocial behaviour in a village, our difficulties may be minute in comparison with those faced in urban areas, but we still face problems, because we do not have enough police. If one rings for a policeman in a rural area, the chances are that, by the time he arrives, the problem has either gone away or things have deteriorated to such an extent that he needs back-up. Whatever happens, by the time he reaches Exmoor, his radio will not be working, because police radios do not work in most of my constituency.
	If we continue as we are, more and more people will come into areas such as ours. There are cases in some of our more deprived areas—I acknowledge that they are nothing compared with some urban areas—of people being brought in from Manchester and Birmingham. They have caused severe problems and the police cannot cope.
	Our police force is lumped together with that of Bristol, in the Avon and Somerset force. A rural conurbation in Somerset bears no relation to Bristol. The chief constable has to put resources into Bristol to achieve public service agreement targets. Whatever the increase in his budget or police numbers, the resources go to Bristol to fight urban crime. The Under-Secretary claimed that there were more police, but my area is to get half a policeman. I await his arrival with bated breath. In my area, half a policeman is useless—[Interruption.] I appreciate that that applies everywhere.
	How do we put half a policeman into areas where we cannot get police now? That is a fascinating example of a formula that does not work. Things get worse. The largest Butlins in the United Kingdom is based in my constituency. It has 2,500 employees and 9,000 people a week visit it. It does a tremendous job and the police are rarely called in to sort out a problem. However, the position outside Butlins is different. People who visit Butlins tend eventually to leave and they cause trouble and behave antisocially in Minehead, a small rural town with a population of only 10,000, which is doubled when Butlins is fully operational.
	On a bad Butlins night, the local police have no chance of coping. Taunton is more than 20 miles away and Bridgwater is slightly further. If the police want reinforcements, they do not get them. They have to sort the problem out. Things have reached the stage where it is inconceivable to local people that they can get help from the police. Antisocial behaviour happens not only in urban conurbations but in rural areas.
	If a problem cannot be tackled, it is simply moved down the road. People from all over the United Kingdom come to enjoy themselves in my constituency. If things go wrong and an antisocial behaviour order is served on them, they return to their homes. The order goes with them, but that does not help us. Butlins can ban them but we cannot stop them returning later. We have experienced that problem for years.
	One of our courts has now shut and the second is under threat. If it closed, my constituency, which is nearly 60 miles long, would have no court representation. We have a probation officer at one end of the constituency and half a probation officer—I keep speaking about halves—at the other. The latter does two and a half days a week. Someone in west Somerset who has to go to court because of an antisocial behaviour order must go to Taunton, to which there is no bus service. What do people who have no cars do—steal them? The police spend much time on rearresting and issuing warrants to get people to court. We do not have the infrastructure because the court has gone. Surely a Bill on antisocial behaviour should provide for local justice for local people.
	Our court in Bridgwater, which covers 30,000 people, is under threat. If it closes, again, people will have to go to Taunton. Somerset could end up with only three courts. The problem of antisocial behaviour in most of our large towns cannot be solved. Yet the sums do not add up.
	Let us consider firearms. In Exmoor and Somerset there are apparently 22,000 registered firearms holders—12,000 shotgun holders and 10,000 rifle holders. Most people in Somerset know how to shoot. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made a poignant point and she was right to say that people start with air rifles. People learn to shoot with them. I accept that 17 is the right age, but most people in my area can shoot well before they are 17 because dad has a gun. Few people on Exmoor and in the levels have no idea how to use a weapon. That does not mean that they are dangerous or unsafe but they have the ability to use it with supervision.
	Measures that are too draconian mean that people will go down the pub to buy a weapon. A policeman in my area said that it is cheaper to buy a gun in a pub than in a shop. I do not know whether that is true, but even if it is partly true, it is frightening. We must be very careful about putting firearms out of people's reach, because, in my area, they will use traps or poison or whatever they have to use to deal with vermin—animals that they have dealt with for generations—and there are many more unpleasant ways of doing that than using a rifle or an air rifle.
	Another problem that we have in rural areas is the dumping of cars. A lot of people come out from Bristol and other places to dump cars because it is very easy to do so. We have the smallest district council in the United Kingdom. Its total budget is only just over £4 million; it does not have the resources to remove dumped cars. I agree that dumping cars is antisocial behaviour, but if someone dumps a car on the top of Exmoor, how on earth do we get it off? We do not have the time or resources. The cost to the council is ridiculous. Of course, by the time someone gets there to remove it, it is still the same car as it was when it was dumped there. It still has its tyres and windscreens, because people do not tend to vandalise cars there. It is almost driveable, but, of course, we cannot do that.
	There is undoubtedly a lot to commend the Bill, but will the Minister please remember the rural areas? They are part of a very large hinterland, and they do not have the resources of the conurbations. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House represent large towns. We have Bristol near us, and we know the problems that we face as a result. We get all its drugs and a lot of its problems, and we do not like it. An antisocial behaviour Bill should be inclusive, not exclusive. If this Bill were drafted properly, it could be a very good Bill in terms of exclusion orders. If not, places such as west Somerset and Bridgwater will suffer out of all proportion because we do not have the resources to put into the problem in the first place.
	5.51 pm

Gerald Kaufman: I apologise to the House for having been absent for a good deal of the debate, but I have been chairing the Culture, Media and Sport Committee over at Portcullis House.
	The Bill can be of great assistance to my constituents, particularly in relation to dealing with premises from which drugs are sold. As I said in an intervention on the Home Secretary earlier, we have a whole area around Chapman street in Gorton that has been blighted by the sale and trading of drugs at a local Texaco filling station. After great pressure, Texaco has taken action to stop that happening, but we never know when it will come back again. I therefore hope that the definition of "premises" in the Bill will include such premises as filling stations, so that they can be closed down in such circumstances if need be. A local wine store is also alleged, by my constituents who watch and monitor it, to be used for the sale of drugs as well as alcohol to underage people. Again, I hope that the definitions in the Bill will enable the police to close that place down, if need be.
	These problems do not only affect commercial premises, however. They affect private premises, too. The Bill rightly deals with issues relating to social housing, but the problem does not only affect social housing. There are areas in my constituency in which private landlord accommodation is used for the very purposes referred to in the Bill in relation to social housing, namely for drug trading and as brothels. It is utterly intolerable that housing benefit should be used to fund those activities, which ruin the environment for the large numbers of people who live around those private landlords' houses.
	The Bill introduces a power for social housing providers to demote tenancies. Fine; we welcome that in the Gorton constituency of Manchester. I very much hope, however, that when we come to discuss the housing Bill—a Bill parallel to this one—the powers of demotion will be extended to private tenancies and that provision will be made for action to be taken against private landlords who make money, often by collusion with tenants, not only out of drugs trading or brothels, but out of the housing benefit scams that go with such activities.
	I hope that the Government will bring in the housing Bill as quickly as possible so that we can be one of the areas in which licensing takes place, and these appalling landlords—who never reply to representations from Members of Parliament—can have their properties removed. Private landlord abuse of that kind did not take place for a long time, but we are now back to a version of Rachmanism: reverse Rachmanism. I hope that the Government will move speedily. My constituents look to the Government, because they have observed the positive impact of much of what has been done under the crime and disorder legislation—legislation that I supported.
	In a sense, my constituency pioneered antisocial behaviour orders. Some of the most powerful have been imposed there, and my constituents welcomed them. What they do not welcome is the weakness of the courts when orders are violated. I have already told the House about a 14-year-old girl on whom an order was imposed. The police circulated leaflets so that everyone would know about it. The girl violated the order 10 times, and was arrested 10 times. The courts did absolutely nothing about it. Only after I raised the case in the House was the girl taken into custody after violating the order again. It was very good for her to be taken into an ordered environment for a number of months, because a parenting order concerning her was also violated.
	In my constituency, we do not just seek powerful legislation of this kind, although we welcome it. We want that legislation not to be sabotaged by weak courts that do not enforce the will of Parliament.

Hilton Dawson: Surely a child of that age, apparently with a huge number of problems, should be dealt with in the care system rather than the justice system.

Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend may be right, but the fact remains that the child was not dealt with. We had a way of dealing with her, but it took prolonged violations and havoc in the area where she marauded for that to happen. She will probably lead a much more constructive and happy life than she would have if action had not been taken.
	Relations with the police are extremely good in my constituency, and the police are very active. I thank Superintendent John Brinnand, who deals with a large part of my constituency, for his continuing responsiveness to the problems brought to him. The White Paper mentions the work of Manchester city council and its neighbourhood nuisance teams. I thank the council for the work it is doing, but both the council and the police will say that they need a framework.
	I wish that people would speak about these matters with an honest, open and clear voice. Liberal Democrat councillors turned up at the opening of a neighbourhood wardens project in one part of my constituency, which I attended, and participated. They said, however, that a neighbourhood wardens scheme in another part of the constituency was useless and a waste of time. Let us have a bit of consistency when it comes to streets, as well as entire wards and constituencies.
	I thank the Government for the Bill. It is a good Bill. But, as I said when the Crime and Disorder Bill was introduced, the test will lie not in the excellent words but in the enactment, and it is my constituents to whose verdict I will listen. 5.59 pm

Vernon Coaker: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He listed some of the difficulties he had encountered in his constituency, and throughout the debate others have described the problems they have encountered in theirs. I could do the same, but what my constituents are asking is how we reached this point. Why have the horrific episodes encountered by Members occurred, and what are we going to do about the situation?
	All of us welcome the Bill because it is a further attempt by the Government to tackle the problems that we have heard about. It is important that we give voice to what our constituents are saying to us. That underpins the reasons for the Bill and for tackling the problems.
	We need to draw a line in the sand. We need to make a stand on these issues. My constituents are saying to me that the tail is wagging the dog and that the rights of the individual are riding roughshod over the rights of the community. We cannot have a situation where people are saying that to us, because it brings Members of Parliament and the Government into disrepute and it undermines the authority of the police, the community support officers and those whose job it is to assert legitimate authority in our constituencies. It is important for the House to reflect the concerns that our constituents have, because they are sick of it. Many lives are blighted by the problem and they want something done about it.
	Many of my constituents have moved on from anger almost to despair in some respects—almost to a feeling of helplessness and frustration. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) said, it is not just an urban problem or a rural problem. It may be worse in some areas than others but it is a problem in every area of the country. If we do not tackle it and give a voice in this Parliament and this Chamber to the people who are telling us that, others who try to give them a voice will take our place. A tremendously serious issue confronts us. I think that all of us welcome many of the proposals in the Bill, which will help us to tackle it.
	Many hon. Members have said that the Bill will be law but law needs to be enacted and enforced. That presents us with some problems. We need to ensure that the measures are enforced. I give one example from my constituency. I take the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton and others have made, that private landlords need to be included in the housing Bill or other measures. We have a situation in my constituency, both with the housing association and the local authority, where single families are causing mayhem in a community or in a street. They are warned. People work with them. The police visit them God knows how many times. Everyone talks to them. Everything happens but nothing changes and they continue to cause mayhem in that community.
	People just turn round and say, "Why doesn't anyone do anything? Why can't we do anything?" I turn to the local authority, which says that it does not have the power but I think that it does. I think that the Bill extends the power that it has, but what we cannot have in three or six months' time when the Bill becomes law is those families in my constituency or other constituencies saying exactly the same thing—that they have got individual families whose children are playing out until God knows what time, that they are attracting drug dealers, prostitutes and goodness knows what else and nothing happens. That is the way the law is brought into disrepute. That is what our communities are having to put up with.
	This cannot go on. I do not understand why nothing can be done. If it comes to eviction, we have to evict those families, whether they have children or not. To protect communities, we need to consider what we are to do with the problem families that we evict. At the moment, we are imposing problem families on communities that are already struggling to cope, because we cannot come up with a social policy to deal with the consequences of eviction. Be it through supported housing or some other measure, we need to ensure that housing associations and local authorities can evict problem families in such a way that communities are protected and sustained in a decent way, and that we can properly protect the interests of the children of such families. If we do not do so, we will simply abandon those families and those communities.
	We all know of examples of an area being completely transformed as a result of one or two families being moved out. I should tell the Minister that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I am pleased that we have got more police and that we have record numbers in Nottinghamshire, but we need more. If we do not deal with problems in our communities such as individual problem families, we will never have enough police. The police are being asked to deal with social problems and issues that it must be very difficult to for them to deal with.
	It is time for me to finish, but I am glad that I have raised the issue of individual problem families, because it has caused particular difficulties in parts of my constituency. There are many other measures in the Bill that I welcome. In general it is a good Bill, although the Committee will undoubtedly improve it. The fundamental point is that we have to use it as the opportunity to draw a line in the sand and say to our communities that we have had enough as well, and that the full force of Parliament will be used to protect their rights.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am very pleased to speak in this debate, and I should like to begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), who painted a very rounded picture of how the Bill fits into the overall scheme not only of tackling antisocial behaviour, but of providing the opportunities for youngsters that the Liberal Democrats have talked about so much.
	This Bill does not stand on its own—if it did, it would be very unstable, like a one-legged stool. What we need to do is to provide opportunities for youngsters through partnerships with voluntary sector groups, and to recognise that the vast majority of youngsters want to contribute to society and to behave according to the old Greek ideal of good citizens. My warning to Liberal Democrat Members in the light of their contributions is that they fail to recognise that to make that stool perfectly balanced, we must have the power to tackle those who choose to put themselves outside the norms of behaviour. Community safety partnerships, the extension of the policing family to include community support officers and neighbourhood wardens, and the involvement of the voluntary sector, form part of that approach. We should also recognise the role of community councils—it has not been dealt with properly today—in conjunction with local authorities in improving the environment and bringing local people on board through community initiatives. Parents, children and grandparents have a role to play, but for those in our most deprived communities who are not in that fortunate situation, schemes such as sure start should be provided.
	The Liberal Democrats have tended to paint Labour into a corner as the party of Herod—the party that is trying to do away with youngsters and children—but it is not. Policies to deliver the extension of opportunities and the provision of family-centred values are already in place. The Bill is one more aspect of that; it does not stand alone.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) pointed out, we are trying to reverse a situation that has got out of hand in terms of low-level nuisance behaviour. It is not necessarily a question of a lack of policing. Although we should try to increase police numbers, as the Government have successfully done, and to extend the police family, the more fundamental need is to challenge the very acceptance of such behaviour in our communities. That is not a question simply of giving the police more resources. We must tell communities to take ownership of the problem themselves, and to challenge what is happening on people's own doorsteps.
	That would turn around the approach that we have adopted for a generation. People have said, "We will sit back and wait for something to be done, for us and to us." The community safety partnerships challenge that approach. People are now saying, "We will put in place the laws and resources. Now we must get up and act together."
	I shall not speak for too long, to make up for my earlier interventions and to ensure that other hon. Members have enough time. I turn to the importance of enforcing the measures in the Bill. Community support officers are very important. I have long been a strong advocate, in debates on what became the Police Reform Act 2000 and elsewhere, of extending the police family, and of the use of CSOs. I remain so today, especially after my experience of going out early with Metropolitan police officers in the pilot study areas. I am very pleased that the South Wales police force, after failing to apply in the first tranche of funding for CSOs, has seen how those officers work very effectively elsewhere. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening, as that force has applied for resources in the second tranche of funding. I hope that my hon. Friend will smile favourably on that application.
	Six of the most deprived areas in Wales are in my constituency. The first money to be allocated there went to the crime reduction partnership, which is now the community safety partnership. It is now recognised that that money may now be used for additional CSOs, because that would extend the eyes and ears of the police family. Many hon. Members have spoken today about the old-style bobby who knows people locally, who can walk up the street and deal with low-level nuisances as and when they happen. That is exactly what my divisional commander is now talking about using CSOs for. South Wales police officers are highly trained and effective, but we need more eyes and ears on the ground.
	The powers of CSOs have caused comment, especially their powers to disperse groups, and to remove to home people aged under 16. That is exactly what my constituents talk about. They want to know about the police presence on the ground, which can get involved when there is a real problem. Discretion and common sense are required, but Opposition Members have spoken about localism, and the presence of CSOs is an example of just the sort of localism that we need. Local people who know the problems on their streets also know who the youngsters and troublemakers are. They can see when there is a problem, and they can say to a young person, "I'm taking you back. I'm getting you out of here, because the neighbours are worried and annoyed by your presence. They will not go out of doors because of your activities."
	I should welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's comments about fixed-penalty notices and CSOs' ability to use them. When such notices are used, is it possible that the resources arising could be recycled back into communities? That would be a winner with communities, as it would convince people that being effective in implementing the law would tackle nuisance behaviour and also put money back into the pot. That money could then be used for the further tackling of antisocial behaviour in a community's streets.
	I shall digress slightly to talk about a hobbyhorse of mine. I want to deal with a matter that I have encountered in my family and in my neighbourhood, and which I brought to the House's attention two or three weeks ago, after an incident in Cynon valley. A two-year old youngster was killed in a tragic accident when an off-road motorbike was ridden down a pavement.
	I hope that powers can be included in this Bill, or somewhere else, to fine petrol retailers who knowingly sell to off-road bikers who are unlicensed, untaxed and under age. Those riders come off the public highway to fill their tanks on petrol retailers' forecourts, and then scoot off down cycle paths, causing mayhem and worry. Could such powers be included in this Bill, or would another vehicle for them be more appropriate?
	Furthermore, powers to confiscate vehicles are required. There are many responsible and well-behaved off-road motorbikers in south Wales, including those in the club organisation, but there is a big illicit market that enables people to pick up bikes from free ads one day, then use them next day without any training and experience—not only that, but drive them on public highways. That is worrying. Where are the powers to confiscate those vehicles when they are abused in that way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Tony Banks.

Tony Banks: My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned yet another example of antisocial behaviour that he would like banned. Hon. Members on the Benches next to me have been coming up with a whole host of such examples this afternoon. The best one that emerged was mine—that one needs a permit to come out of one's house. In the end, I thought, "Why not ban everything?" I make that point because, without wanting to sound too much like a killjoy, part of the function of our being here is to ban things. That is precisely what people want us to do. They say, "Why can't you stop it? Why can't you ban it?"
	Listening to the debate, it is fascinating to discover that, although hon. Members have quibbles about the Bill, there is enormous agreement across the Floor of the House about the need to deal with antisocial behaviour. I do not want to add a discordant note to an otherwise constructive and friendly debate, but I have to say that if I asked my constituents what concerned them most, antisocial behaviour in the east end or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I know what they would say, because they are under more threat from the violence of thugs and hoodlums in my part of the east end than they are from the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein is alleged to possess.
	There is no doubt that the Bill is absolutely to be welcomed. That unites all hon. Members, because every one of us can point to examples in our constituencies of people coming to us to complain about antisocial behaviour, and we share our constituents' anger and frustration, and fear for them. Perhaps we should call this a "letting off steam" Bill as far as Members of Parliament are concerned. Many hon. Members have given examples from their constituencies. Yesterday, during one of my advice sessions a constituent, whose name I will not mention, came to see me. She is a respectable, decent, hardworking woman who has lived in her council property for 30 years and has brought up two daughters to the same standards that she has tried to follow. For two years, her life has been made a complete misery by a gang of youths. Incidentally—owing to the ethnic nature of my constituency, the problem crosses all classes, all areas and all ethnic groups—she is Afro-Caribbean and the gang is largely Asian. They have been destroying her nice garden and ripping the covers off the various containers in it, and incessantly kicking a ball up against her bedroom wall. She was crying and saying, "No one should be forced to live like this." I shared her frustration. To be perfectly honest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is why I wanted to speak today. I told her, "Every one of us is aware of how you feel, and we share that anger and desire for something to be done." I hope that the Bill will begin to address her problems.
	I accept that some aspects of the Bill need re-examination and tidying up—the age aspect is certainly one of them. However, if we do not get it right first time we will have to return to it. There is nothing wrong with saying that we will carry on responding as situations change. That is the right way to do it. There is no such thing as perfect legislation, so we should not feel worried, ashamed or embarrassed if we have to return to the matter, and I hope that if the Government have to introduce further legislation they will not hesitate to do so.
	I have my own long list of antisocial acts that I would like dealt with. I am particularly concerned about the use of airguns because of evidence that we hear from the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports. Who are these sick perverts who actually fire air pellets at animals? I heard of one case in which a cat was held up and persistently shot at. Who are the people who could do that?
	I understand that we have to deal with the causes of the social breakdown in a number of our communities. That breakdown is caused by a minority of people, but, as we have heard, one family can ruin things for everybody else in their street. We have to examine the causes but we also have to deal with the symptoms. It is no good saying to people, "Come the socialist millennium, everyone will live in peace and harmony." That is not good enough. People want to know what we are going to do now—today. We should be prepared to do things now and, of course, then be prepared to examine the causes of antisocial behaviour in greater detail in an effort to eliminate it.
	In this place, we talk a lot about our community. However, the spirit of community in this country seems to have been breaking down over many years. That cannot be put down to one particular Government or another; it has been happening over a long period. People used to say in the east end of London that they would sit out in the streets and leave their doors open. They would be mad to sit out in the streets and leave their doors open now, if they thought that their property would be left intact. We can never recreate that wonderful spirit that the older Members among us in the House may remember. I grew up in Brixton in the 1950s and I do not remember having to worry about street crime or the sort of antisocial behaviour problems that now infest this country.
	We have to make a greater effort to instil in our young people a sense of community, because it is as much in their interests as it is in ours. Obviously, we have to start at the youngest possible age in the schools. I am fearful that we are losing generations of our young people. One can see the despair that the activities of some individuals and groups cause in our areas.
	I have a proposal to make. It is perhaps one of my more extreme proposals—and I have made a few in this House. It is that we should have compulsory national community service for all people between the ages of 16 and 17. We have to consider something along those lines and I intend to make the proposal in a ten-minute rule Bill later this month.
	I hope that we will toughen this Bill up. For example, people who go round spraying paint should be forced to clean it up, and people who dump litter should be forced to clear it and other people's litter up, rather than just receiving a penalty notice. However, I welcome this Bill, hope that it will be amended, and commend the Government for introducing it.

Hilton Dawson: I too commend the Government for the concern that they have rightly shown about antisocial behaviour. There is nothing more corrosive to people's quality of life, to the confidence of communities or to the well-being and happiness of individuals than some of the scenes that we all witness daily. This afternoon, we have heard about many examples of rude, ill-mannered and inconsiderate behaviour—public drunkenness; foul language; graffiti that is often obscene and invariably ugly; litter and rubbish that no one takes responsibility for cleaning up; the unsightly and hazardous mess of abandoned and burned-out cars; noise; the sheer lack of thought and respect for others; and filthy needles dropped where children can pick them up.
	I am delighted with the new investment that the Government have made and with the thousands of extra police officers and community support officers. The establishment of crime reduction partnerships is of great significance. Like others, I am pleased with some measures in this Bill. I am pleased with the closure orders although, like others, I feel that they could go further; and I am pleased with the fixed penalty notices for graffiti. There are measures to control noisy premises and a strategic role for local authorities in relation to fly tipping.
	I am concerned about the sense of despair throughout the Chamber. We could do a great deal more and take a more radical approach to these issues. I am not simply saying that the Bill leaves out a series of measures that I should like the Government to address—although, for example, a small proportion of people in the travelling community cause many problems in my constituency. We frankly need a massive cultural change in this country if we are to get to grips with the issues that face us.
	We need not throw up our hands in despair or cast around for immediate solutions, although some of the solutions are in our hands. We have heard comments about social workers, and the Government are missing the potential of social workers and the long-standing provisions in the Children Act 1989. The Government and much of our society have lost confidence in social services and social workers, and that must be regained.
	The Green Paper on children at risk that is promised in the summer will give us an enormous opportunity. It will be significant and I hope that it will bring together universal and specific measures to utilise the strengths of the community, the voluntary, public and private sectors and the family. I hope that it will allow us to break down institutionalised barriers among organisations and professions and to train people in a new pedagogy for the joined-up, wrapped-around future of dedicated children's services in this country. We should not start to deal with problems through schools, but by promoting positive parenting. We must use the Green Paper to take the opportunity to bridge the historic destructive divide between welfare and justice, and troubled children and children in trouble.
	My great difficulty with what has been said and with some of the Bill's provisions is that we are in danger of reproducing the authoritarianism and punishment mentality that have failed to deal with serious problems and have caused us to have the highest figures for young people in custody of any country in western Europe. Custody does not help to reform people, but replicates problems by creating an appallingly destructive circle in which people leave prison and reoffend. Fifteen children have died in prison since 1997, so we must try to address the issues. No matter how difficult the situations caused by young people in our communities, we must try to get away from putting them in custody.
	I have several concerns about some of the Bill's provisions, such as those to give education officials the power to issue fixed penalty notices. That is not a role for any body other than an enforcement agency. Local education officers should not go to a court to secure a parenting order before the court has the chance to examine information about a pupil's family circumstances. We need a more holistic approach than that. We need a new approach to the Children Act 1989. In considering the massive problems caused by tenants, we need to utilise the resources pioneered by NCH in its Dundee project. We need, again, to have confidence in what social workers can do. I have real qualms about the new foster parent requirement, which is apparently intended to be an alternative to custody, unless those concerned are aged under 12 when it could be used anyway. That new foster parent requirement is equivalent to a time-limited care order, without the need to pursue care proceedings, and it means a spell in foster care without the representation implied in the Children Act 1989, and without access to the benefits of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. It replicates problems that we experienced in the past with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
	My biggest problem, however, is with clause—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's biggest problem is that his time is up.

James Paice: I am almost sorry to interrupt, as the hon. Gentleman was making a remarkably rebellious speech, to which I enjoyed listening. I agreed with much that he said, if I may spoil his reputation completely.
	The debate has featured a large number of speeches from Members on both sides of the House. To listen to many Labour Members, however, one would think that this was the first crime Bill of a new Labour Government, instead of being something like the 16th in six years. I suspect that many of them have not read much of the Bill or studied what came previously. All Members have rightly emphasised the importance and seriousness of antisocial behaviour, and the way in which it starts a spiral of decline, which can—although not always—lead to more serious criminal lifestyles. The Home Secretary was right when he said that the issue cannot be resolved overnight, and I want to make it clear that there is no difference between us in terms of the objective: we all want to feel able to walk around and to live our lives without fear of abuse, harassment, intimidation or attack. Regardless of our race, age or gender, that is a basic entitlement that all should expect.
	The debate is not about the issue, however, but about the Government's repeated attempts to address it. Many Members have said that the Bill addresses the real problems of constituents. The long title of the Bill and the headings of some of the clauses certainly address the real problems of constituents, but a study of the contents of the Bill shows that a great deal is lacking.
	A few months ago, just before the state opening of Parliament, the Prime Minister stated his belief in the importance of dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour:
	"Low-level aggression, vandalism, fights in town centres on Friday and Saturday nights, anti-social neighbours, fly tipping, abandoned cars, graffiti, truancy. They are crimes that don't hit the headlines every day, but they do hit the daily quality of life of many in our communities, often the elderly and the most vulnerable"—
	and so say all of us. Having said those wise words, however, the Prime Minister, as is so often the case, had to fly around and about finding something to do to justify what he had said. That effort has ended up with the Government promoting this Bill, which merely gives the illusion that it will impact seriously on antisocial behaviour. Those few parts of it that are sensible—of course, there are a few—would be better in their own specific departmental Bills, but they have clearly been excised and extracted, bit by bit, from a multitude of other Departments, to be included in this Bill to justify the Government's claim to be doing something about antisocial behaviour.
	Most cynically, despite the high importance given to the Bill in the Queen's Speech as one of the centrepieces of this year's legislative Session, we find that it has been delayed until the outset of the local government elections. So the Bill appears as a glorified press release. It is all very well for the Minister to laugh, but we have seen Labour's campaign documents and we know that that is the strategy that the Labour Government have been following.
	As so many of my hon. Friends have rightly said, the real need is for more police officers—a number of Labour Members said that, too—because there is ample evidence that an enhanced police presence significantly decreases antisocial behaviour, even without any of the measures proposed in the Bill. Despite what the Home Secretary would have us believe, the Government's record so far on police numbers is not so good as he would wish.
	The reality is that, during each of the past six years, the average increase in this country's police forces has been at a much lower rate than was achieved on average during all the previous Government's 18 years. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but those are Government figures. We often laugh at Government figures, but they should not seek to ridicule their own Government.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) all referred to the importance of police numbers and, indeed, to the reduction of police paperwork. As I have said before in the House, I have a file of what is required for a single arrest and 26 different forms have to be filled in by a police officer. Nothing that the Government have done has reduced that burden.
	Yes, we need an extra 40,000 police officers, and we will pay for them by reforming the asylum system, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has said. [Interruption.] I purposely pause to allow the Home Secretary to laugh, because the Government could make that change themselves. The Chancellor could announce that tomorrow, because the Prime Minister has said already that he will halve the number of asylum seekers by September. If he does so, he will have the saving, using the Government's own figures, to make a very significant step towards our own targets. That is the reality using the Government's own figures.
	Let me turn now to one or two issues in the Bill. In 1998, the Government pledged to cut truancy by a third. In 2002, they cut the pledge because they had achieved nothing. They then pledged to reduce truancy by just 10 per cent. between 2002 and 2004. There have been parenting orders for nearly three years, but only 538 of the 3,000-odd orders that have been issued already have related to truancy; the rest were issued for other reasons and were nothing whatsoever to do with truancy.
	As many hon. Members, including the Government's supporters, have said, a very worrying precedent would be set if teachers were to hand out fixed penalties. The Government will almost certainly be forced to withdraw that idea—if not by us, then by their own supporters and teachers' organisations.
	Clearly, all Opposition Members support closing crack houses, as proposed in the clauses on housing. There may be marginal differences about whether antisocial behaviour must be proved, but I return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset: the Government passed legislation to enable that to happen two years ago, in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, but they have never implemented it. Even if they can persuade us that this method is better, they still cannot justify having done nothing whatsoever about closing crack houses for two years.
	Much has been said about antisocial tenants of registered social housing owners. None of what is proposed is fundamentally wrong. There are big questions about whether the proposal will make the difference that the Government believe that it will make, but, again, it is a clear example of the Government hiving something off to get it into the Bill. As a number of hon. Members have said, the proposal leaves untouched the privately owned rented sector and, indeed, as has been said, the owner-occupied sector. We are told that at least some of those issues will be addressed in the Housing Bill. Why split them? Why not deal with them all in the Housing Bill, as ought to be the case?
	As my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, community support officers have been deployed only for a few months, so even the most enthusiastic among us must admit that the jury is still out. Although there cannot yet be any possibility of an objective assessment of their effectiveness, the Government are proposing a huge increase in their powers. Surely, the Home Secretary must realise that the more powers he gives CSOs, the more they will begin to look like substitute police.
	In addition, the Bill gives many powers to accredited community safety officers that currently attach only to community support officers. Such proposals were rejected by Parliament only nine months ago, yet the Government want to renege on that decision. The current proposals include the fascinating possibility that an accredited community safety officer could charge someone with wasting police time. As such an officer would be neither a policeman nor a police employee, that provision is astonishing. It will be interesting to see how that works.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and others referred to penalties. The measure would extend fixed penalties to 16-year-olds and, more seriously, the Home Secretary would be empowered to reduce that age to as low as 10 merely by affirmative order. That is a major step and it will need to be examined in Committee. The Home Secretary should not take to himself the power to impose fixed penalties on someone as young as 10 without full primary legislation that has been debated on the Floor of the House.

Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Paice: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
	Graffiti is already a crime, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said. It is criminal damage and, as the Government themselves point out, it is always prosecuted as such—although of course the offenders have to be caught. The explanatory notes make it clear that the imposition of fixed penalties could lead to an overall relaxation of penalties for such offences. According to the notes, the Government intend to use fixed penalties for less serious graffiti and fly posting offences.
	A report published by the Greater London Authority noted that the majority of graffiti writers are over 18, yet the Bill includes proposals to ban the sales of aerosol paint to those aged under 18. That is taking a ridiculously large hammer to crack the nut. A 14-year-old can have a drink with a meal and at 15 they can have a shotgun. At 16, they can get married; they can join the Army and decide their sexual orientation. At 17, they can buy a car but they cannot buy a tin of spray paint until they are 18. A 17-year-old can buy an old banger but not the aerosol to spray the wing that they have just tapped out after denting it. That is madness.
	Several hon. Members have spoken about the provisions on firearms. We shall challenge the Government on that in Committee. As we would expect of her, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), whom we all respect, set out the reasons why the Government's proposals will do more harm than good. They will hit the law-abiding airgun user more than they will affect the criminal use of airguns. Some hon. Members failed to understand the existing legislation as they referred to the need to ban the sale of airguns to young people, something that has been illegal for the past 35 years. There are severe penalties for doing so.
	The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) referred to fostering. I think that he was the only Member to raise that issue. He is right to do so, as it will need much consideration. As well as the difficulties of foster families, there is also the problem of dealing with young people when they leave young offenders institutions and secure training centres. For many of them, accommodation is the greatest problem. When talking to youth workers, I find that over and over again they say that if those young people go back to their old, familiar haunts, they will rapidly fall back into their old, familiar and criminal ways.
	A remarkable feature of the debate has been the utter contempt with which most Labour Members seem to view Liberal Democrat Members. They have made critical statements over and over again. Far be it for me to suggest that they may be wrong in their contempt of the Liberal Democrat party, but their criticism clearly represents a final rupturing of any semblance of unity between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. It is a pity that that contempt does not extend to Scotland and Wales, where they joined together in government.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, we shall not oppose the Bill. There are parts of the detail with which we agree, but there are many parts with which we disagree, and we shall return to them in Committee. To oppose the Bill would be like voting against a ghost. The Bill gives an apparition of activity—an apparition floating through parliamentary history—and it will leave only press releases as evidence of its passage. All those who forecast that the appearance of this ghostly Bill would make a dramatic change to society are mistaken. Those who witness it this evening and in the coming months will be in this place afterwards. Then they will know that, as with all ghosts, it will be a Bill without substance.

Bob Ainsworth: It is clear that the importance of the measures proposed in the Bill is well understood by my right hon. and hon. Friends. There have been 19 Labour Back-Bench speeches. I am aware that some of my hon. Friends were not able to participate in the debate because we ran out of time. By contrast, we have had a token presence of Liberal Democrat Members throughout our proceedings. They have made it clear that they do not consider the Bill to be of any importance. They do not plan to vote against it, but they intend to use their friends in another place to sabotage various provisions within it. [Interruption.] That is exactly what was said. Issues that are important to many people in constituencies throughout the country are not, it seems, of great importance to Liberal Democrat Members.
	The Back Benches of the official Opposition have been empty for large parts of the debate, which shows a lack of concern about the issues that are raised by the Bill. The contributions that we have heard from Conservative Members have tended to fall between two stools. First, there has been the counsel of despair. That has come through again and again from those on the Opposition Front Bench and from Conservative Back Benchers. In effect, they have been saying, "There is not a lot that we can do about this." Secondly, there has been the idea that we can solve the problem by creating huge numbers of police officers. How will we pay for those officers? We have been presented with the apparition of some magic pot of money that can be made available to pay for substantial numbers of new police officers. Where were the police officers—

Oliver Letwin: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: No, not yet.
	Where were the police officers when the Conservative, Government were in power? We do not need to gaze into the crystal ball to see what the Conservatives would do, when we can examine the record. We have record numbers of police officers now. Since the last Labour Government, in 1976, we have recruited, over the 12 months up to September 2002, 4,300 additional police officers. That is in addition to the more than 1,200 community support officers who are now in the force, who are disparaged by Opposition Members. I accept that those community support officers are new and have not been deployed for long, but before the Opposition continue with their policy, they ought to get out into the areas where those officers are being deployed, and talk to the police officers who are working alongside them, as well as the individuals who are doing the job and the commanders who are tasking them. When they do so, they will see the level of support in the police force for that facility.
	It is not be possible for me to refer to every single speech that was made this afternoon as there were far too many. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) talked about problems in her constituency regarding drugs and crack houses, as well as current good practice in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) talked about the same subject. They are quite right—good policing has been effective in shutting crack houses—but they know, as I do, that current measures take too long in many circumstances. Problems that can arise during the period in which effective action is being put together can be extremely disturbing for people who live in or next door to the premises where dealing is taking place. Measures in the Bill are additional to the measures that police officers can take now, and will provide a quick, clear solution where nuisance is created by the peddling, selling and use of class A drugs. It will not be necessary to get witnesses to give evidence in those circumstances—evidence can be presented to the court by police officers and local authority officers to achieve the quick closure of the premises and relief for people living nearby.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) expressed concern about the use of fixed penalty notices by the education service. Concern was also expressed by Members of both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. It is not as if the use of fixed penalty notices by anyone other than police officers is anything new. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that fixed penalty notices must only be issued by police officers, but they are issued by traffic wardens and local authority employees. If we have to use the court system and get a constable involved every time we try to deal with the truancy problem that exists in some schools, we will not have effective measures—

Chris Grayling: rose—

Andrew Selous: rose—

Bob Ainsworth: I shall give way in a moment.
	If we have to use those means, we will not have the effective measures against truancy that we badly need.
	I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash that we do not intend to give every teacher the ability to use fixed penalty notices, but what on earth is the matter with education welfare officers being able to issue fixed penalty notices? What is the matter with organising truancy sweeps to get people back into school where they belong, and education welfare services providing those sweeps? What is the matter, in some circumstances, with head teachers and governing bodies approving specific members of staff to issue fixed penalty notices to deal with the problem of truancy? We will deal with the detail in Committee, and are prepared to deal with Members' concerns, but the measure will cut bureaucracy and enable us to take effective action.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) wanted us to deal with the problem of antisocial behaviour orders so that they are more easily obtained. She also wanted us to remove the costs involved in their application so that they are used far more often. We have made a number of changes that ought to streamline the ASBO system and make the orders more usable, as they can be attached to other court proceedings. We continue to look at the costs involved, and will keep the relevant measure under review to ensure that ASBOs are used as widely as they should be, so that we can deal with a problem that is of concern in our communities.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) asked that there be powers to seize vehicles that are used and are likely to continue to be used for fly tipping. That is the intention in the Bill. Under its provisions, if the case can be made that vehicles are being used for fly tipping and are likely to continue to be used for that purpose, they can be seized.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) said that the Bill was about decency and tackling yobbish behaviour. We heard from the Liberal Democrats that there needs to be balance in that regard. Yes, there does need to be balance. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when he opened the debate, we should see the measures in the Bill not in isolation, but as part of a broad range of measures. If Liberal Democrat Members do not realise that victims have rights and communities have rights, and that those rights ought to be equally as important as the rights of perpetrators, and possibly of greater importance, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) may be representing the lobby, but he is not representing his constituency as he ought to.

Simon Hughes: In that case, why have the Government not introduced the promised victims and witnesses Bill, for which we have been pressing?

Bob Ainsworth: It is noticeable that the hon. Gentleman is ready to speak about anything other than the issues that he raised about this Bill. Does he not recognise that the problems of communities and of victims of antisocial behaviour, and not just the rights of perpetrators, are important?
	The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) echoed those of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he said that the measure should not be seen as a stand-alone Bill. He had some concerns about paying compensation to the owners of properties that we propose to close down as part of the measures to deal with crack houses. We will have to examine the compensation issue carefully. It is not our intention that compensation be paid to people who have been part of the problem and who have failed to deal with it in their communities, but sometimes innocent people are caught by those measures, and we need to be prepared to consider compensation in those circumstances.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) argued so well that we should not expect others to live with conditions and behaviour that would not be tolerated by some in society who set the priorities and who are responsible for enforcing the law. That exposes the myth about antisocial behaviour. Dealing with it is not a matter of measures that will disproportionately affect the poor. The poor are disproportionately affected by antisocial behaviour. The rest of us can move away. We can buy the means to protect ourselves. There are many communities in all our constituencies that cannot do so. We must be prepared to make sure that they enjoy the kind of protection and the life that we so often take for granted.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) had some concerns about the gun measures. I believe that we will be able to satisfy those during the passage of the Bill.
	The Bill contains practical solutions that relate to real problems faced by many people. Those solutions arise from discussions with frontline service providers, such as the police. We will give them the tools that they need to do the job that they want to do. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 22nd May 2003.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
	6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Kemp.]
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 338, Noes 147.

Question accordingly agreed to.

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) amounts ordered to be paid in respect of loss incurred in consequence of prohibition of access to, or the closure of, premises;
	any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That, at this day's sitting, the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to the Question on the Motion relating to Northern Ireland.—[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
	That the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 498), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Joan Ryan.]
	Ordered,
	That the Care Homes (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 534), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Joan Ryan.]

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Pharmacies

David Kidney: A number of Members have recently presented petitions on the subject of the Office of Fair Trading report on pharmacies. I am now presenting a petition on the same subject, on behalf of residents of my constituents. Four hundred and sixty-one signatures have been collected.
	The petition
	Declares that the proposals made by the Office of Fair Trading allowing the unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions will have a detrimental impact on local pharmacies and their continued services to local communities.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject the proposals made by the OFT for the unrestricted opening of pharmacies,
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Jim Dobbin: My petition is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). This issue has caught the public's imagination. My constituents fear that proposals in the OFT's report on pharmaceutical services will adversely affect community pharmacists' ability to deliver a comprehensive service. The petition, signed by approximately 2,000 of my constituents, asks for the protection of opening hours of pharmacies serving local communities.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to keep the present framework by rejecting proposals which could lead to the closure of community pharmacies.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (DEFRA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]

David Taylor: I am delighted to have secured this debate, at the fifth or sixth time of asking.
	Before coming to the House in 1997, I worked for three decades in the world of information technology. I worked in a range of jobs, from software development through systems analysis and lecturing to project and team management. All that experience was in local government, so it is not surprising that I have taken a keen interest in the use of IT in national Government—and especially in the sad Gadarene rush of Departments towards the expensive abandonment of control called "outsourcing".
	When I joined the new Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs after the 2001 election, one of our reports was on the performance of the new Department. I think I am right in saying that we were all disappointed at the weak, perhaps even woeful, approach to IT.
	My public sector experience has been that outsourcing can often be the last desperate act of an IT-illiterate top management who are drowning in a whirlpool of technology they do not understand and who are seduced by private sector IT sharks into buying solutions claimed to be a panacea for all ills, including their organisational incompetence.
	The new DEFRA top management were said to be the finest available in what was always likely to be a Department with numerous challenges. As an MP representing a rural constituency, with a personal focus on environmental issues, I was and am convinced that the new Department has the ability to boost the quality of life for millions, especially with the Ministers it now has, so I regretted the lack of an IT strategy, other than to sell off IT and throw DEFRA to the mercies of the private sector.
	Under the previous Government, IT services went through a market-testing programme that brought flexibility in terms of numbers and skills while the Department retained control and the ability swiftly to reposition staff if necessary without incurring penalties, financial or otherwise. Years later, the better quality service programme suggested better utilisation of the private sector and better investment within the Department but not the transfer of the in-house capability. Following the end of the foot and mouth outbreak, internal management decided that the BQS recommendations were no longer viable and that a new review to include looking at outsourcing the service should take place.
	The Department rushed to finalise its IT strategy by the end of March 2003 in response to criticisms from the Select Committee and to meet its timetable for procurement. As that strategy did not exist before the decision to privatise the IT services, it has been heavily influenced by the privatisation proposals. It is therefore a strategy to support the programme rather than reflect the true business needs of DEFRA.
	The Office of Government Commerce gateway one report stated:
	"There remains a strong resistance from the trade unions and the majority of Defra staff. There is a serious risk of disruption to business through poor morale, loss of staff, or industrial action. Delays in decision making and consequent uncertainty amongst Defra staff and management as to which individuals are in scope and how services will be provided is leading to reduced support for the privatisation option".
	Its recommendation was that within the programme greater leadership needed to be demonstrated by committing to take bold and early decisions in order to remove uncertainty and de-risk delivery, for example, through staff retention strategies. That report was written on 11 December 2002 and DEFRA has still not produced any staff retention measures, other than token concessions at Guildford, where fewer than 50 per cent. of the Department's total IT staff work; there are no current measures to help the rest.

Sue Doughty: I am concerned about the staff retention issue. There are considerable skills in that sector. IT in this area is complex and needs the skills that are at Guildford. What are the hon. Gentleman's comments about how DEFRA can retain those skills within the plans that it has?

David Taylor: I think that that is possible given imagination and knowledge, which are not necessarily always present in the right places—although that is one of the questions that I shall put to the Minister at the end of my speech.
	A notice placed in the Official Journal of the European Union includes the following statement:
	"For guidance, the current spend"
	for DEFRA IT
	"is approximately 85 million GBP per annum."
	It further states:
	"The contract will be for an initial term of 7 to 10 years with the ability to extend up to a maximum contract term of 17 years subject to mutually agreeable terms."
	The Department is, therefore, considering tying itself into a contract worth £1 billion. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and DEFRA has never committed that sort of expenditure to IT before. It is difficult to know what may have to be cut down the line to ensure that those future bills are met.
	DEFRA is a new organisation and still coming to terms with its remit. It is going through major changes. Lord Haskins is reviewing the links of all the countryside agencies, for example. There are over 30 current reviews of the work and infrastructure of the Department and those can hardly allow a clear picture of the potential IT work load. This is a time for flexibility, not for rigid contracting out of services. It is not the time to try to privatise IT service delivery, which nowadays, if not core to, is at least the lifeblood of any business.
	An IT strategy has at last been produced, and the management board has insisted on the corporate governance of IT. Both were sorely needed, and although required for the outsourcing, they will also allow internal staff to be more efficient and cost-effective. However, it is difficult to understand why the Department's own staff are not being allowed the opportunity to show their worth under this new regime, especially given the extra funding being made available to improve the infrastructure, rather than wasting taxpayers' money on privatisation—unless, of course, this is a purely political decision.
	The Department is also rightly trying to improve the infrastructure before privatisation takes place. The maxim is: never outsource a problem, and I agree with that. However, it is not as if this action and the investment have not been sought before by in-house staff, who are now asking why they were denied this opportunity to work efficiently, and why it is being granted to an external supplier.
	While the privatisation programme has been meandering along, staff have been providing an excellent service. There has been a preference exercise, and details of which posts will be TUPE-ed to the external supplier are about to be issued. If a sufficient number of unhappy staff take their careers elsewhere, DEFRA business continuity will be seriously compromised. But the Department is not offering staff any incentives to remain. During the foot and mouth crisis, in-house IT staff worked long hours in remote locations for many weeks away from home, setting up emergency IT networks to improve communication. At the height of the crisis, the Department tried to get additional support from the private sector, but—surprise, surprise—it was found to be inflexible and extortionately expensive. How will DEFRA cope with future emergencies without the flexibility of its in-house capability? No modern business can divorce IT from its day-to-day business requirement skills. To do so is restrictive, backward-looking, not cost-effective and very unlikely to attract able young people into the work force.
	The list of recent Government IT failures linked to private finance initiatives, public-private partnerships or outsourcing grows ever longer. The consequent cost to the public purse has become truly astonishing. I shall briefly touch on two examples, as they provide important lessons for DEFRA. As a justice of the peace, I had close experience of computerisation within magistrates courts. The Libra system, which linked courts, was an abysmal failure and needed total re-designing last year at a cost of some £134 million. The coruscating National Audit Office report into that debacle points to serious mistakes, which could be replicated by DEFRA. The Inland Revenue, with which I had many contacts as an accountant, is now trying to re-tender contracts worth £5 billion over 10 years. However, EDS and Accenture are so embedded after a 12-year contract that other companies cannot really take part in the tender process. So the Inland Revenue—and the taxpayer—will enjoy astonishingly poor value in the marketplace.
	Whitehall has never learned the IT lessons of the 1992 Wessex disaster. The audit report into that health authority found a management style that discouraged criticism and open debate, led to too close a relationship between the authority and suppliers, and imposed systems on resistant IT specialists. This has a good deal of resonance for DEFRA.
	So what are the main reasons for the two frequent failures in Government IT contracts? At the edge of what void do I feel DEFRA is perilously teetering? The size of contracts means that competition is rare, because only a handful of companies is able to provide services on such a large scale. There is also an attitude in Whitehall of never taking risks with the unknown. Almost all IT contracts in government go to five companies: EDS, Accenture, ICL/Fujitsu, BT and IBM.
	The private sector cancels more quickly if it has financial or time problems with a company. The Government tend to carry on topping up the costs and extending the deadlines. The IT industry knows that there is little IT expertise in senior positions within Government Departments, so control is effectively handed over to the contractors. Private companies build in expensive clauses for change. The Government constantly change requirements in Departments such as DEFRA—which is still, as I said, an emerging structure—and at the whim of EU legislation. This can make long-term contracts hugely expensive.
	Government Departments are also rarely able to pin liability on private companies, which are much smarter at writing contracts. So taxpayers end up carrying the extra costs of delay and poor specification. The Minister should not just take my word for the bottomless bear-traps that lie down the outsourcing route. He should listen to how key advisers slam Whitehall IT suppliers. They say:
	"Strategic IT partnerships between the public and private sector have no future unless suppliers get their act together, stop making exorbitant claims and deliver true value for the whole life of contracts."
	That blunt message was delivered at the recent conference of the Institute of Economic Affairs by no less a personage than Peter Gershon, chief executive of the Office of Government Commerce, which is responsible for Government procurement policy. He said that only a miserable one in three of UK public sector IT projects were at all successful. He warned IT suppliers that the Public Accounts Committee saw partnering as a mechanism for suppliers to take "naive public sector clients" for a ride.
	I absolutely agree with every word. IT suppliers often regard Government as a cash cow. If the Government really want to emulate the private sector, in which they have such touching and abiding faith, they should look at the sector's present attitude to outsourcing. Companies are going for shorter-term contracts, and for rebuilding internal IT provision to increase flexibility and competition. In today's market, there is no sense in the long-term contracts that DEFRA is pursuing.
	Many outsourcing contracts entered into during the 1990s are coming up for renewal, and the hard-earned experience from those contracts too frequently reveals that services failed to deliver the anticipated benefits, that the exact scope of the outsourced services was unclear, and that there were insufficient contractual remedies to ensure proper supplier performance. We need no crystal ball: the stack of critical reports casts a shadow right down Whitehall.
	In addition to the points raised in my speech, there are four key questions that I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will address, either now or in writing.
	How much money has DEFRA spent on employing consultants on the IT privatisation project in the past year? What is the average daily rate paid to those consultants?
	Given that the Office of Government Commerce made strong recommendations last year to DEFRA to introduce a staff retention strategy because of the risk of skills loss to the privatisation project, what measures has DEFRA introduced to ensure skilled staff are not lost to the Department?
	Will the Minister explain what is meant by the statement by the permanent secretary that IT was not part of the "core business" of DEFRA? Is it not true that any modern organisation must have an effective and reactive IT service embedded in its core business if it is to provide efficient delivery?
	Finally, the recent Official Journal of the European Union advertisement seeking expressions of interest from IT suppliers contains the statement that the current spend for DEFRA IT is approximately £85 million a year. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister provide a breakdown to show how that figure was arrived at? Will they also provide a similar breakdown for IT spending in MAFF or DEFRA over the previous three years?
	Finally, I am relieved that DEFRA has adopted a more sensible approach to corporate governance and corporate data, and that it is, albeit slowly, feeling its way towards a higher profile for IT and a coherent strategy for its utilisation. I say sincerely that all of that is most welcome. IT is common ground for top civil servants, and lowly Back Benchers, but the chosen route of privatisation is as astonishing as it is unnecessary. It could well prove to be a most costly folly, which will doubtless be criticised by future MPs and Ministers, but defended by that impervious layer of top civil servants who forget nothing and learn nothing, and who are paid for by poor, long-suffering taxpayers and citizens.

Alun Michael: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on obtaining a debate on what I agree is a most important issue. I regret to say that he is well out of date, and that some of his criticisms relate to the past and not to the present. However, he ended on a positive note. I warmed to that, and suggest that, if my hon. Friend wishes, I could discuss some of the issues raised in the debate with him in the future.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), my experience before entering the House was in local government, where I was chair of finance. More recently, as a member of the Government, I have seen both good and bad in IT procurement. For that reason, when I took on my present responsibilities, I very strongly questioned the recommendations of officials, and challenged their presumptions. I can tell my hon. Friend that I would have been happy to discuss with him the way in which we have approached the Department's IT strategy over recent months, and I hope that we will be able to discuss the matter in the future. In addition, the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who intervened in my hon. Friend's speech earlier, has spoken to me on a couple of occasions about her concerns on this matter. I think that she well knows the amount of time that I have put in as I have attempted to ensure that the Department gets this matter right. One of the most important issues is indeed that of staff retention. We have demonstrated a commitment to IT staff working at Guildford until at least April 2007. We have also made a commitment to follow high standards of transfer and a commitment to the training and development of all staff—not only the staff who might be outsourced or retained, but all staff, treating them as individuals. As far as loyalty payments to staff are concerned, there is no business justification for that at the moment because loss rates are low. Incentives include wider career opportunities for many staff working for specialist IT organisations, as well as those retained in the Department.
	I turn to the four questions that my hon. Friend asked. On the cost of consultants and the question of spend, it would be best if I write to him. I shall touch on his question about core business in a moment. The point of tackling the whole way in which we manage IT in DEFRA is that the Department exists to manage a programme of radical and far-reaching change. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned some of the changes that we are trying to bring about, which include: the concept of sustainable development; balancing economic, social, environmental and conservation issues across a range of aspects of public policy; for the first time, effectively addressing rural economies and communities as part of the mainstream activities of the Department; waste management issues; major shifts in rural land use; and many other issues within the Department's wide portfolio. Delivery of those changes needs to be fully supported by a very broad capability in terms of information technology. There are two strands—first, to get the IT strategy right and, secondly, to get our supply and delivery arrangements right.
	The DEFRA IT strategy document sets out how IT will best support DEFRA over the coming years. It is a pragmatic document, not some IT flight of fancy, and it is strongly supported by those delivering services to external and internal customers within the Department. It has been reviewed by one of the most experienced consultants at the Office of Government Commerce, who described it as credible, as having a good level of buy-in and as reflecting a great deal of progress, and who stated that all those factors contribute to a positive sense that the task that DEFRA has set itself is achievable.
	The strategy has two key aspects, the first of which is that it involves the delivery of a wide range of new systems. First, we have the big development—worth more than £50 million—of the England rural development programme, and we have the Rural Payments Agency, which deals with EU subsidy payments to 70,000 farmers. Secondly, we have technical developments such as radiological monitoring and the surveillance of animal disease outbreaks. Thirdly, we have the customer livestock and land use registers to provide consistent information. The second key aspect of the strategy is that it involves pragmatic implementation—first, a phased approach and, secondly, extensive use of best practice for IT projects such as using Office of Government Commerce gateway reviews.
	That is the context in which the outsourcing programme must be understood. So, why are we doing it? I would say exactly the same as the Permanent Secretary—providing IT is not our core business. As far as DEFRA is concerned, IT is a big business in itself. An immense range of new supply and delivery arrangements are needed to support the IT strategy. That involves not just small changes to existing services, but the need to establish a new technical infrastructure—not only in IT, but terms of changes to the way in which DEFRA undertakes its business. There are issues of customer relationships, geographical information, science, disease monitoring, payments and management information. Is it wise to run such an ambitious range of work outside one's core business? It is not possible for the Department to be technically expert in everything.

David Taylor: Which came first—the decision to privatise or the IT strategy? If it was the former, that flies in the face of all the potentially successful approaches to IT that I have encountered over decades.

Alun Michael: As far as I am concerned, we have had to grapple with the immense programme of change and the need to get IT that was appropriate to the demands on the Department in relation to its policy objectives. The question then was how best to develop and deliver an IT strategy. That was the order of things. As in all such things, the question of the chicken and the egg arises, because people are looking at how to deliver the policy. However, as far as I am concerned, the first task with officials has been to tease out what the Department needs to do and how we could best ensure that what we did was served by the right IT strategy. Over the period in which we have worked our way through this and into the processes of the gateway strategy, the chickens and eggs have got themselves into order. I believe that we are getting things right.
	Outsourcing IT best supports the necessary specialisations that are required in DEFRA. I did not come to that view easily. As I have said, I had many questions about the way in which the Department was approaching its new challenge. People should remember that we addressed these questions immediately after a new Department had come into being through the bringing together of two large sections of previous Government Departments with a set of major new responsibilities. We considered internal restructuring, but that would not give us what we needed because of the complexity of the changes required. We need access to a large pool of experience and talent at the cutting edge of IT.
	Our challenge has been to make our strategy a success. Having taken care not to rush the early stages, we are now moving ahead, ensuring that we are building on the needs of the departmental change programme and the IT strategy. Since being given ministerial responsibility, I have taken a personal interest in this. I took the initiative and discussed our options and possible approaches with Peter Gershon, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire said, is the head of the Office of Government Commerce. I did that to ensure that we learned from what had happened elsewhere. My hon. Friend rightly referred to some of Peter Gershon's comments on the way in which experience elsewhere in Whitehall should be learned from. I ensured that we had a gateway zero review before setting out; I visited Guildford and met trade union representatives; I offered opportunities for training; and I upgraded the human resources input to the programme in discussion with our officials. That is why I am now certain that we are on the right track—as has been confirmed following the Office of Government Commerce gateway three review in March, to which I have already referred.
	We are now ready to go. We are launching procurement in the Official Journal of the European Union and we expect to award the contract by summer 2004. We are aiming for success through learning lessons, through consulting widely, through drawing on consultancy experience and through managing the risks. We have recently appointed an IT director from the private sector who has led previous outsourcing projects. We are recruiting more key people to the management team. We are looking to use people who have done this before and done it well.
	In the light of comments made by my hon. Friend, I want to make it clear that we are not handing over our destiny. The Department is not handing over the direction of IT or selling off the family silver, as my hon. Friend rather suggested that we were. Outsourcing is only a part of what we are doing. We are developing internal skills in the business management of IT; we are developing clearer governance; and we are developing more long-term planning, as in the IT strategy. We are retaining the capability to manage the supplier, and the arrangements for that are being planned now. We are working with all in DEFRA to ensure that we are ready for a new service and that the new service gives the users of IT in the Department what they need.
	I must stress that we are not neglecting our staff. We have published our human resources strategy, which defines the values and principles that will ensure that staff are supported and treated fairly. I have made this clear to the staff and I am happy to state it here now: I want us to value every member of staff in DEFRA, whether they are members of staff whose future will be as part of the internal operations—the intelligent customer function—or they are members of staff who will move to a private sector supplier or find themselves elsewhere. That is why we have put such emphasis on the human resources strategy.
	Those DEFRA staff who transfer to the new supplier will do so under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Senior officials managing the programme have regularly and frequently consulted departmental trade union representatives, in particular on issues of concern to staff. Again, the increased emphasis on human resources has allowed us to improve and intensify that work.
	An extensive and varied training and development programme is under way for staff who are affected by the programme, including a one-to-one counselling programme. That programme is a big undertaking. We have not taken it on lightly and would not be doing this if we did not believe that it was the right way forward for the Department.

David Taylor: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. Before he concludes his remarks, however, will he briefly answer my questions? Why was not at least a fraction of the hugely increased resources that are to be spent on IT in DEFRA made available to existing staff who could have demonstrated what they were worth and drawn deeply on the skills that they have developed in the years that they have given to MAFF and DEFRA?

Alun Michael: We are increasing resources for IT because we have initiated a more ambitious IT programme for a vastly increased Department. We are in a different ballgame. As I said, we have tried to support staff as a part of that programme. We have not intended to leave staff behind and to look outside DEFRA. We have tried to carry staff with us and have put a programme in place to increase and improve their skills so that they can be part of the new arrangements. That reflects our ambition. We very much want the staff to be part of the future of DEFRA.
	The basic point is that DEFRA has a major programme to deliver. We are ambitious to do that in the most modern way possible and to use IT to the best. That is why our programme of change in the Department is underpinned by a well developed and linked IT strategy, and by plans for IT outsourcing that is capable of meeting the Department's wide-ranging needs. Providing that service is in the best interests of the public and all those whom we serve on the range of matters for which we are responsible. It is also the best way to ensure that our staff have the tools to do the job.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eight o'clock.